MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION-NOVEMBER 3, 2025.
>> ALL RIGHT WE'RE BACK. I WILL RECALL THE MEETING FOR THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION FOR NOVEMBER 3, 2025. WE HAVE TO REDO SOME THINGS SO IT'S CAPTIONED FOR THE AUDIENCE AT HOME. SO I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL AGAIN WHEN SHE'S READY.
>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. COUNCILMEMBER CHOWDHURY IS ABSENT. CONLEY. >> HERE. >> FORNEY. >> HERE. >> GORDON. >> HERE. >> JONES IS ABSENT. SKJEFTE IS ABSENT. SHEPPARD. >> HERE. >> WAGNER. >> HERE. >> VICE PRESIDENT BAXLEY. >> HERE. >> AND PRESIDENT MEYER. >> HERE.
>> THERE ARE SEVEN MEMBERS PRESENT. >> WE HAVE A QUORUM. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 2025? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] . >> OPPOSED? THAT IS ADOPTED?
THEN FOR OUR AGENDA, WE HAD GONE WITH WE WILL HAVE ITEMS 4 AND 5 ON CONSENT AND ITEMS 6, 7, AND 8 ON DISCUSSION. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THAT AGENDA? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE
[CHORUS OF AYES] OPPOSED? THAT AGENDA IS ADOPTED. NOW I WILL REOPEN THE CONSENT AGENDA. IF ANYONE WANTED TO SPEAK TO ITEMS 4 OR 5, NOW IS YOUR CHANCE. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO ITEMS 4 OR 5? ALL RIGHT, NOT SEEING ANY. SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON ITEMS 4 OR FIVE? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT OUR CONSENT AGENDA? >> SO MOVED. >> ALL RIGHT, ANY FINAL DISCUSSION?
SEEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? ITEMS 4 AND 5 ARE ADOPTED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECTS. NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER SIX.
4301 LAKE STREET EAST. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER AND COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AN
APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSAL TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY NEAR THE ALLEY BEHIND THE PROPERTY OF 4301 LAKE STREET EAST. I WILL GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT IN THIS PRESENTATION. BUT JUST TO TALK ABOUT THE
PICTURE THAT'S ON THE SLIDE NOW, THIS PRIGS -- PROPOSAL IS ONLY TO VACATE WHAT YOU SEE IN THE SOLID RED RECTANGLE HERE. AND WOULD NOT IMPACT THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC ALLEY RUNNING THROUGH THIS WALL.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A CONTEXT ON THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, THIS IS FOR THE BLOCK THAT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE STREET EAST AND OTHERWISE BOUNDED BY 31st STREET EAST TO THE SOUTH AND 33rd AND 34TH AVENUES TO THE WEST AND EAST SIDES.
IT PRIMARILY CONSISTS OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES ON PROPERTIES WEST OF LAKE STREET. THE CONCRETE ALLEY THAT RUNS THROUGH THIS BLOCK THAT'S USED FOR ACCESSING PROPERTIES INCLUDING GARAGES AND TRASH PICKUP, ET CETERA. IT'S MOSTLY AN L-SHAPE CONCRETE
ALLEY, SO IF YOU ARE STARTING AT THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY FROM 31st STREET GOING INTO THE ALLEY, IF YOU'RE DRIVING NORTH, YOU CAN'T CONNECT ALL THE WAY TO LAKE STREET. YOU HAVE TO TURN RIGHT TO THE EAST AND BACK ONTO 44th AVENUE. BUT THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL
DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THIS BLOCK, SPECIFICALLY A WESTWARD EXTENSION NEAR THE TURN OF THE ALLEY IS PART OF THAT DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND AGAIN THIS IS PRIMARILY BEHIND THE HIGHLIGHTED PARCEL
WHICH IS 4301 LAKE STREET EAST. SO THIS IS ONE OTHER DIRECTLY ADJACENT PARCEL WHICH IS A DUPLEX ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THIS ADDITIONAL DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA IS NOT IMPROVED AS AN EXTENSION FOR
ACCESSING THE ALLEYS ON THIS BLOCK. AND IT DOES NOT CONNECT ALL THE WAY TO 43rd AVENUE TO THE WEST. AND ALSO JUST SHOWING THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW SCREEN SHOT HERE AND IF YOU CAN SEE WHERE I PUT THAT RED ARROW ON THE MAP SHOWING
WHAT VIEW THIS IS SUPPOSED TO CAPTURE. THIS IS LOOKING TO THE WEST TOWARDS THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT FUNCTIONALLY IS BASICALLY AN EXTENSION OF THE PARKING LOT FOR THE 4301 LAKE STREET PARCEL. AND THERE IS A SLIGHT SLOPE UP FROM THE ALLEY LEVEL TO THAT
PARKING LOT WITHIN THIS ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION, AGAIN IN THE MAP ON THE LEFT WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT VACATING THIS ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS
IN THAT SOLID RED RECTANGLE. ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE IT'S SHOWING THE SAME AREA ON THE EXHIBIT PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT'S SURVEYOR. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN THIS CASE DOES INCLUDE ANALYSIS AND REVIEW BY NOT JUST MYSELF AND MY COLLEAGUES IN CPED, BUT ALSO
PUBLIC WORKS STAFF. IT'S BEEN FOUND THAT THIS IS NOT PART OF A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. AGAIN THIS SPECIFIC AREA IN QUESTION HERE, NOT NEEDED FOR ANY PUBLIC PURPOSE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY EASE. S FOR UTILI-- EASEMENTS FOR UTI
OR INFRASTRUCTURE. THERE WERE A TOTAL OF TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED AND BOTH OF WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IHAS A REPRESENTATIVE IN TODAY'S HEARING. BUT I'M READY TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS.
>> I HAVE ONE. IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WE RECEIVED, THEY ASKED THIS TO DENY THIS SO THAT THEY CAN PRESERVE THIS AS A GREEN SPACE. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE? IF THE CITY WANTED TO TURN IT INTO GREEN SPACE, WHAT WOULD BE
THE PROCESS THEY WOULD NEED TO DO TO ACCOMPLISH THAT? >> CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONERS, FRANKLY I'M NOT SURE WHAT ALL THAT WOULD ENTAIL. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE EXACT HISTORY OF THIS SPECIFIC AREA OR THIS BLOCK.
THERE'S A LOT OF UNUSUAL PLATTING AND FURTHER CHANGES TO PROPERTY LINES IN THIS AREA. SO I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO PIECE TOGETHER THE COMPLETE HISTORY HERE. ULTIMATELY SORT OF THE USE OF DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS
CONTROLLED BY THE CITY IS PRIMARILY HANDLED BY OUR PUBLIC WORKS STAFF. BUT FRANKLY I'M NOT SURE WHAT EXACT STEPS WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN IN ORDER TO CONVERT THIS INTO A FORMAL PUBLIC GREEN SPACE AS AN EXAMPLE.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M GOING TO ASK EACH SPEAKER TO LIMIT YOURSELF TO TWO MINUTES. AND JUST TO NOTE TO SPEAK CLEARLY INTO THE MICROPHONE SO
THAT OUR CAPTIONERS CAN ACCURATELY DOCUMENT YOUR COMMENTS FOR THE AUDIENCE AT HOME. I HAVE THREE SPEAKERS ON MY LIST AND I'LL CALL THEM UP IN ORDER. FIRST I HAVE TYLER AUGUSTINO AND THEN JAY MATIAS WILL BE SECOND
AND CATHY ERICSON IS THIRD. >> MY PROPERTY AT 13 AND 3015 HAS THE MOST FRONTAGE TO THE PROPOSED VACATION AND I ACTUALLY
DO HAVE A COUPLE OF RESPONSES ABOUT THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED TO THE STAFF MEMBER THAT WERE NOT ABLE TO BE ANSWERED. THE SLIGHT INCLINE IS BECAUSE THE PARKING LOT WAS LEVELED AT THE TIME IT WAS DEVELOPED OR PAVED I SHOULD SAY. AND THEN ALSO THE ALLEY WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A NON LAKE
STREET, NONARTERIAL ACCESS TO THAT PARCEL WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO 43rd AVENUE. SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY THAT ALLEY EXTENSION EXISTS EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT IN USE BECAUSE THERE IS NO CURRENTLY ANY PROPERTY DEVELOPED ON THAT
PARCEL. WHAT I HAVE SEEN FROM THE DEVELOPER IS THAT THEY'VE DEVELOPED AND IN THE STAFF REPORT THIS WAS ALLUDED TO, THEY'VE DEVELOPED SEVERAL PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY AND NONE HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND IN THE CITY STAFF REPORT IT SAID THERE'S AN
INTENDED FUTURE PROPOSAL FOR DEVELO DEVELOPMENT. AS MULTIPLE PROPOSALS HAVE COME THROUGH, THEY HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THROUGH AND THE PROPERTY CONTINUES TO HAVE BLIGHT. AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD WANT THE CITY TO GIVE UP ITS OPTI
OPTIONALITY ON THIS PROPERTY AT THE TIME THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THEY HAVE FOLLOW THROUGH ON REDEVELOPING THE PROPERTY. THAT IS WHY I AM OPPOSED TO THIS VACATION AT THIS TIME, NOT PERMANENTLY, BUT AT THIS TIME I DON'T THINK THAT THEY HAVE SHOWN
THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD OR SHOWN THAT PLANS ARE IN PLACE THAT THEY WILL FOLLOW THROUGH ON TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE, I CAN'T READ THE FULL FIRST NAME.
IT STARTS WITH A J, MATTIAS. >> HELLO, JOEL MATHIAS HERE. FROM WHAT LITTLE I UNDERSTAND OF THIS, IF ANYBODY HERE CAN EXPLAIN TO THE ROOM PRECISELY
WHAT A VACATION MEANS, THE IMPLICATIONS THEREOF, WOULD THE COUNTY OR THE CITY BE SELLING THIS TO THE DEVELOPER AND SOME MONEY GET BACK TO THE TAXPAYER? WOULD IT BE GIVEN? THAT'S JUST A CURIOSITY OF MINE.
I TEND TO AGREE WITH DR. JOSH HANNEN AT THE RIVER LAKE CLINIC WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED AREA THAT AT THIS TIME THE DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY SOLID PLANS ON WHAT THEY WOULD PROPOSE TO DO WITH THE
SPACE. I AM NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO IT BEING DEVELOPED BECAUSE YES, THE CURRENT STATUS IS BLIGHT AND SOME MORE HOUSING OR SOMETHING ELSE COMMERCIAL COULD BE NICE. AND AT THE MOMENT NOT SEEING ANY
SOLID PLANS, I PERSONALLY AM AGAINST IT AT THIS MOMENT. I DO LIKE MS. CATHY ERICSON'S IDEA OF THE GREEN SPACE. I THINK THAT COULD BE ENTERTAINED AND POSSIBLY INCORPORATED IN WITH ANYTHING A
DEVELOPER MAY HAVE. BUT I GUESS THE PRIMARY THRUST TOO OF WHAT I'M UP HERE SPEAKING IS THAT IF THE CITY OR COUNTY IS TO RELINQUISH, VACATE THIS SPACE FOR COMMERCIAL ENTITY FOR THEIR
OWN PROFIT NOT KNOWING WHETHER OR NOT THAT MONEY WOULD BE KEPT IN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND DOING ANY BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY HERE, IT DOES NOT FEEL RIGHT TO VACATE THAT FOR SOMETHING THAT COULD DO
NOTHING TO BENEFIT US. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE CATHY ERICSON. >> HI, GOOD EVENING. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL OF MY
NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE COME UP HERE PRIOR TO THIS. I AM THE ONE THAT PROPOSED A GREEN SPACE THERE. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE LOVELY. I GREW UP IN THAT AREA, I HAVE BEEN THERE PRETTY MUCH ALL OF MY LIFE. AND HAVE BEEN ABLE TO USE THAT PUBLIC SPACE AT WILL. I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF A COMMERCIAL ENTITY WOULD COME IN, USE THAT SPACE, AND THEN HAVE IT
BLOCKED FROM ANY KIND OF PUBLIC ACCESS. PRIVATE PROPERTY, YOU CAN'T CROSS, THAT WOULD BE HARD. THAT WOULD BE DEVASTATING. I'VE SEEN OUR NEIGHBORS DOGS BEING TRAINED IN THAT AREA. I'VE SEEN CHILDREN LEARNING TO RIDE THEIR BIKES THERE IF THEY DON'T WANT TO GO AROUND THEIR
BLOCK. I'VE SEEN FAMILIES PLAY BALL, CATCH DURING HOLIDAY TIMES. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING JUST TO GIVE IT UP AS A NEIGHBORHOOD ADVANTAGE. SO IF WE COULD KEEP THAT AND TURN IT INTO SOMETHING LOVELY TO USE, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER
NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO ALL. SO THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DID ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? ONE MORE. GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE
OWNER. WE ARE LOOKING AT A DEVELOPMENT SITE ON THIS CORNER. BUT DEVELOPMENT AND UNCERTAINTY IS PROBLEMATIC. SO ONE OF THE ITEMS OF CERTAINTY IS WHAT IS THE SIZE AND THE SHAPE OF THE LOT. SO WE'VE PUT FORWARD, WE ARE LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS. THERE'S A LOT OF HEADWINDS ON DEVELOPMENT OVER THE LAST FEW
YEARS. THOSE HEADWINDS ARE LIGHTENING UP AND WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS PUTTING A PLAN TOGETHER. THE FIRST STEP OF THAT PLAN IS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS OUR PROPERTY. SO ESSENTIALLY HALF OF THAT GOES BACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE THEN KNOW WHAT OUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT.
FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES BASED ON THE SETBACKS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, NOTHING IS GETTING BUILT ON THE AREA THAT'S BEING VACATED ANYWAYS. SO I GUESS WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. KIMBERLY, CAN YOU HELP ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS OF THE SECOND TESTIFIER BROUGHT UP. EXPLAIN TO US THE PROCESS FOR VACATING A PROPERTY, WHO IT GOES
TO, WHO THE REVENUE GOES TO. >> SO FROM HERE, AGAIN A VACATION IS SOMETHING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WE WORK WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS TEAM ON. THEY LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THIS LAND IS NEEDED FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE, A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR.
THAT IS REALLY THE ONLY FINDING. THEY HAVE FOUND THAT IT IS NOT NEEDED FOR EITHER OF THOSE PURPOSES. SO FROM HERE, IT WOULD GO TO THE BIZ COMMITTEE, THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN THE FULL CITY COUNCIL, IT'S THEN FORWARDED ON TO
HENNEPIN COUNTY AND FROM THERE IT'S LOOKED AT WHO OWNS UNDERLYING FEE TITLE AND THEN IT'S DISTRIBUTED ACCORDINGLY. THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A ROLE IN THAT PORTION OF THE PROCESS. >> IS THIS A QUASI JUDICIAL OR QUASI LEGISLATIVE?
>> IT IS A LEGISLATIVE ITEM. >> THAT MEANS THE COMMISSION CAN MAKE WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE WANT TO THE COUNCIL. SO FOR THE FINDING, IF IT'S A
PUBLIC -- YOU SAID PUBLIC CORRIDOR OR PUBLIC PURPOSE? SO WOULD JUST HAVING A GATHERING SPACE BE A PUBLIC PURPOSE? >> PUBLIC WORKS HAS FOUND THAT IT IS NOT. ALSO THE CITY TYPICALLY DOES NOT ACQUIRE SMALL PORTIONS OF LAND
LIKE THIS TO USE FOR PUBLIC PARKS. WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE FROM THE PARK BOARD WHO I'M SURE CAN SPEAK TO A LOT OF THIS. BUT TYPICALLY IT'S THE PARK BOARD WHO OPERATES THOSE SPACES AND WE DO HAVE OTHER SITUATIONS
WHERE IT'S BEEN INVESTIGATED TO TURN BACK EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE USED AS POCKET PARKS. BUT THIS HAS NOT BEEN A CONVERSATION HERE. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS? COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT WHO WAS JUST UP. MENTIONED THAT YOU MAY NOT EVEN DEVELOP ON THAT SMALL SPACE ANYWAY. AND I WONDERED IF YOU HAD
CONSIDERED OR AS THE HEADWINDS START TO EASE UP, HAVE YOU WORKED WITH RESIDENTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA TO IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD ON THAT, WHAT IT COULD BE USED FOR OR IF FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, THAT PIECE OF LAND COULD BE PART OF A PUBLIC AREA?
>> I'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO HAVE THAT QUESTION. >> SORRY, THANK YOU. >> YES, COMMISSIONER CONLEY. SO WHAT IT ESSENTIALLY DOES IS IT PUSHES EVERYTHING INWARD. SO IT REDUCES THE OPEN AREA ON
THE INWARD OF THE SITE WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP. IT'S AN EXCEPTIONALLY SMALL PIECE OF LAND. I KIND OF WONDER HOW MUCH YOU COULD GATHER BETWEEN A SITE THAT SMALL TUCKED BETWEEN A GARAGE AND A FUTURE BUILDING ON THE BACK END OF AN ALLEY FRANKLY. SO IT WILL BE OPEN SPACE BECAUSE
OF THE WAY THE LOT LINE SETBACKS ARE IS WE'RE GOING TO BE NINE FEET OFF OF THAT PROPERTY LINE WHICH FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THAT, WE'RE GOING TO BE BEYOND THAT ANYWAYS. SO IT WOULD BE OPEN SPACE, BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN MAYBE WHAT'S BEING SUGGESTED AS PUBLIC SPACE. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THOSE
TWO. WE ARE LOOKING AT DOING PLANTINGS, HAVING SPACE TO PUT TREES ALL OF THOSE THINGS. BUT NOT AS A PLACE TO GATHER. >> COMMISSIONER FORNEY. >> JUST FOR ALL TO BE AWARE, WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT DEPENDING
UPON EMPLOYEES OR IF IT'S A LIVING OR IN OTHER WORDS DWELLINGS, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY EITHER A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE OR PART OF THEIR PARCEL WOULD GO TOWARDS POTENTIALLY A PARK. SO JUST FOR YOU TO KNOW, HOPEFULLY IT WILL MEET SOME OF
THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. >> DID ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN? SO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, OR MOTIONS FOR THE MAIN MOTION?
ALL RIGHT, I'LL SAY I AM PERSONALLY SYMPATHETIC TO THE IDEA OF HAVING GREEN SPACE. I DON'T SEE A MECHANISM FOR US TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT TONIGHT SO I'M GOING TO GO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF AND PUBLIC WORKS. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A
MOTION? COMMISSIONER WAGNER. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR WAGNER. I WOULD ECHO THOSE COMMENTS AS WELL. I THINK THAT THE THOUGHT OF BUILDING A SMALL PARK IN THIS LOCATION IS A GOOD ONE, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FROM A
PRACTICAL STANDPOINT. UNLESS ANYONE ELSE HAS COMMENTS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF FINDINGS. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY IS ABSENT. CONLEY.
>> AYE. >> FORNEY. >> AYE. >> GORDON. >> AYE. >> JONES IS ABSENT. SKJEFTE IS ABSENT. SHEPPARD. >> AYE. >> WAGNER. >> VICE PRESIDENT BAXLEY. >> AYE. >> AND PRESIDENT MEYER. >> AYE.
>> THERE ARE SEVEN AYES. >> THAT PASSES. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. 4109 AND 4113 SHERIDAN AVENUE SOUTH. STAFF IS LINDSEY SILAS. IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY IF YOU
WANTED TO SPEAK, PLEASE GO OVER TO OUR CLERK AND FILL IN YOUR NAME. AFTER -- I'M ONLY GOING TO BE CALLING PEOPLE FROM THE LIST. SO IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, BE SURE TO SIGN UP FOR IT. GO AHEAD, LINDSEY. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEYER,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU IS 4109 AND 4113 SHERIDAN AVENUE SOUTH. THIS CONSISTS OF TWO PARCELS. 4109 SHERIDAN IS VACANT AFTER THE DEMOLITION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN 2022.
4113 CONTAINS A TWO AND A HALF STORY DUPLEX AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE. 4113 HAS A FLAG PORTION THAT CONNECTS SOUTH TO 42nd. AND THERE ARE SOME CONNECTIONS TO EASEMENTS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
CORRIDOR THREE RUNS THE LENGTH OF SHERIDAN IN THIS AREA. THIS IS AN INTERESTING SITE. YOU CAN SEE ON THE ZONING MAP WHERE THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT CUTS THROUGH THE SITE AT A DIAGONAL. AND THAT MEANS THAT THE SITE IS RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF THE
SHORELINE OVERLAY DISTRICT WHICH IS 1,000 FEET FROM THE PROTECTED WATERS. SO THE REAR OF THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT AND THE FRONT OF THE SITE IS NOT LOCATED IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO
DEMOLISH THE A DUPLEX ON THE SOUTHERN LOT AND CONSTRUCT A THREE STORY BUILDING WITH DWELLING UNITS. THEY HAVE PROPOSED THERE WILL BE 26 PARKING SPACES IN A PARTIALLY UNDERGROUND LEVEL.
THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED. SO IT'S CUP TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM TWO AND A HALF STORIES TO THREE STORIES AND 35 FEET TO 40 FEET SIX INCHES. THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATION IS WHAT HAS DRIVEN THIS APPLICATION TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BECAUSE THE OTHER THREE APPLICATIONS ON THEIR OWN WOULD HAVE BEEN AND ARE ADMINISTRATIVE. SO THE ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS ARE SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE NEW 13 UNIT BUILDING. AN ADMINISTRATIVE INCREASE TO
THE FAR FROM 1.5 TO 1.71 AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEIGHT INCREASE FOR THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING OUTSIDE THE SHORELAND OVERLAY TO INCREASE FROM 3 TO 4 STORIES. SO THOSE TWO ADMINISTRATIVE PORTIONS WHILE THEY ARE LISTED ON THE APPLICATION LIST, THOSE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATIONS THAT STAFF HAS ASSESSED AND THE
APPLICANT IS PROVIDING PREMIUMS FOR THOSE SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THOSE. SO THOSE ARE NOT IN YOUR PURVIEW TONIGHT. REALLY THE MAIN APPLICATION COMING BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THAT SECTION OF THE BUILDING THAT'S LOCATED IN THE
DISTRICT FROM 2.5 STORIES TO THREE STORIES. SO HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE. THE SITE IS LOCATED JUST A COUPLE BLOCKS TO THE WEST OF LAKE HARRIETT AND JUST A FEW
BLOCKS DOWNTOWN OF LINDEN HILLS AREA. A VERY ZOOMED OUT SITE PLAN. I'LL GO THROUGH THE PLANS HERE RATHER QUICKLY. FEEL FREE TO STOP ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THEY HAVE 26 SPACES. SOME OF THOSE SPACES ARE PROVIDED WHICH WE DO COUNT AS PARKING SPACES TOWARDS THEIR
MAXIMUM. THERE IS 18 INDIVIDUAL STALLS BUT 26 SPACES TOTAL. THEY'RE PROVIDING BIKE PARKING BOTH WITHIN THE UNDERGROUND GARAGE AND AT GRADE IN A BIKE PARKING ROOM TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS ABOUT NOT HAVING TO ACCESS BIKE PARKING WITH STAIRS
OR ELEVATORS. HERE IS THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR PLAN. AND THEN THE FOURTH FLOOR PLAN IS SHOWN HERE. THERE'S JUST ONE UNIT PROPOSED ON THE FOURTH FLOOR. IT DOES HAVE SETBACKS FROM THREE SIDES ON THE WEST, SOUTH, AND
EAST TO LOCATE IT OUTSIDE OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. HERE ARE SOME ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING. AND A RENDERING PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
SO THE MAIN APPLICATION AT HAND IS THE INCREASE IN HEIGHT IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND THEN I JUST KIND OF TO SET THE STAGE FOR WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS A USE THAT BECAUSE OF
UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, BUT THAT MAY BE ALLOWED UPON SHOWING THAT SUCH USE IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION WILL COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS AND STANDARDS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. CONDITIONAL USES MUST BE ALLOWED WHEN THOSE STANDARDS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ARE MET AND
DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS MUST BE BASED ON REAL DOCUMENTED HARMS OF THE USE THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED THROUGH THE USE OF CONDITIONS. SO REALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT INCREASE OF HEIGHT FROM 2.5 STORIES TO 3, ARE THERE REAL DOCUMENTED HARMS OF THAT
INCREASE THAT ARE CLEARLY ABLE TO BE DEMONSTRATED. SO STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS ABLE TO MEET ALL OF THE FINDINGS BOTH FOR THE STANDARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS AND FOR THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS RELATED TO HEIGHT.
THIS BUILDING IS ON THE VERY EDGE OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT MEANING THAT IT IS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BOUNDARY OF 1,000 FEET FROM PROTECTED WATER. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A VARIETY OF PHOTOS SHOWING DIFFERENT VIEWS FROM LAKE
HARRIET UP TOWARDS THE SITE. THERE'S SIGNIFICANT TOPOGRAPHICAL CHANGE. LOTS OF MATURE TREES, LOTS OF EXISTING BUILDINGS. AND BECAUSE THIS IS ON THE VERY EDGE OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT UP A STEEP HILL FROM THE LAKE, THERE IS GOING TO BE VERY LIMITED VISIBILITY IF ANY
FROM THE LAKE. AND SO WE'RE ALSO THINKING ABOUT VISIBILITY OF THE INCREASE, RIGHT? SO IS THE HEIGHT INCREASE GOING FROM TWO AND HALF STORIES TO THREE STORIES, IS THAT WHAT'S GOING TO CAUSE THE BUILDING TO
BE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE VISIBLE FROM PROTECTED WATERS COMPARED TO WHAT MAY BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. STAFF FINDS THAT THESE CONDITIONS ARE MET. ALL UTILITIES, TRAFFIC INTERFACE, ALL OF THAT IS GOING
TO BE MANAGED THROUGH THE SITE. STAFF DID RECEIVE JUST AN EMAIL TODAY NOTIFYING STAFF AND THE APPLICANT THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO WORK WITH THE MINNIEHAHA CREEK WATER SHED DISTRICT ON EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND OTHER
THINGS TO ENSURE KIND OF NO IMPACT ON THE WATERS AND THAT HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT. THE FINDINGS RELATED TO HEIGHT ARE ALSO MET.
ONE OF THE FINDINGS IN THE INCREASE OF HEIGHT HAS TO DO WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. AND THERE IS A CALL OUT FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS IN SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THERE IS A SOLAR ENERGY ON THE
PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. SO THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED SOME PRESENTATIONS THAT SHOW THE IMPACT OF A BUILDING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT WITHOUT ANY HEIGHT INCREASE BOTH ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THEN THEIR PROPOSED BUILDING. THE PROPOSED BUILDING HAS OVER
NINE FOOT SETBACKS ON BOTH SIDES AND BECAUSE THE BUILDING, THAT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE THE BUILDING EXCEEDS 75% OF THE LOT DEPTH. SO THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR A STANDARD BUILDING ON THIS LOT WOULD BE SEVEN FEET. FOR A BUILDING OF THE PROPOSED HEIGHT. BUT WITH THE ADDITIONAL DEPTH OF
THE BUILDING AN ADDITIONAL TWO FEET IS REQUIRED ON EACH SIDE. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING NINE FOOT SETBACKS. THEY HAVE MODELED TWO DIFFERENT BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. A BUILDING WITH THE EXACT SAME FOOTPRINT BUILT TO THE HEIGHT MAXIMUMS WITH A SEVEN FOOT
SETBACK. AND A BUILDING THAT IS LESS THAN 75% OF THE LOT DEPTH, BUILT TO THE HEIGHT MAXIMUMS WITH A NINE FOOT SETBACK WHICH WOULD BE ALLOWED FOR A BUILDING WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 42 FEET. I CAN GO THROUGH THESE. THERE'S A NUMBER OF PAGES. BUT I THINK THESE WERE ALL IN
YOUR PACKETS AS WELL. AND STAFF WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY SORT OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED BUILDING THAT REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND AN ADMIN HEIGHT INCREASE AND THE TWO DIFFERENT MODELED BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE
ALLOWED TO BE BUILT BY RIGHT. SO THE PROPOSED BUILDING HERE IS ON THE LEFT. AND THEN THE TWO MODELED BUILDINGS, THERE'S A LITTLE DESCRIPTION ON BOTH ARE ON THE MIDDLE AND THE RIGHT. YOU CAN REALLY SEE THAT THERE'S VERY, VERY LITTLE IMPACT SHOWN
TO THE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM ON THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH IN ANY OF THE MODELS. BUT THAT THEY DO NOT DIFFER BETWEEN THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND A BUILDING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT ANY LAND USE APPLICATIONS REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING.
REALLY THE ONLY CHANGE IS POTENTIALLY THAT -- THERE'S A SMALL AMOUNT OF CHANGE. THAT'S REALLY ONE OF THE ONLY PLACES WHERE WE SEE ANY DIFFERENCE. AND STAFF WAS ABLE TO MAKE THE FINDING THAT THERE'S NO
MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BUILDING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY RIGHT HERE AND THE PROPOSED BUILDING THAT HAS THOSE ADDITIONAL SETBACKS TO MAKE UP FOR THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
I'M GOING THE WRONG WAY. HERE WE GO. SO THERE'S ANOTHER APPLICATION BEFORE YOU, SITE PLAN REVIEW. THERE ARE ONLY TWO REQUESTS FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE, ONE IS FOR BUILDING PLACEMENT. THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO
SET THE BUILDING BACK A LITTLE FARTHER BACK THAN THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. PART OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH MANAGING VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ACCESS TO THE BUILDING. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING GRANTING ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR THAT REQUEST AND THERE IS ONE BLANK WALL ON THE BUILDING AND STAFF
IS RECOMMENDING THAT THAT CONDITION OF A BLANK WALL BE REMOVED IN THE FINAL PLANS. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PRESENTATION AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS? >> MANY OF THE QUESTIONS WE'VE RECEIVED HAVE TO DO WITH
NOTIFICATION. SO WITHIN THE 350 FOOT RADIUS, DO YOU KNOW THAT EVERYONE WAS NOTIFIED BY OCTOBER 13TH? >> YES. WE WERE ABLE TO PULL THE SPREADSHEET THAT IS GENERATED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY. THEY HAVE A LOCATE AND NOTIFY TOOL WHICH OUR CLERKS USE TO SEND OUT THOSE NOTIFICATIONS.
I CAN SEE THAT ALL OF THE NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT. WHETHER SOME NOTIFICATIONS GOT LOST IN THE MAIL OR WEREN'T RECEIVED FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER, IT'S CERTAINLY UNFORTUNATE. BUT WE CAN SEE THAT THE FULL LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 350 FEET WERE SENT NOTIFICATIONS BY THE CITY. AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S ALL WE
CAN DO. WE CAN SEND THE NOTICES, BUT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON WILL RECEIVE THEM. I WILL SAY JUST GIVEN THE LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT ON THE PROPERTY, WE SEE THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ACTIVATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
AROUND THE PROJECT. HOPEFULLY FOLKS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE AND SPEAKING ABOUT THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LEARN ABOUT IT. >> IF I MAY ASK ANOTHER ONE, THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE, THE FOUR-STORY PENTHOUSE PART.
THIS IS ANNIVE -- AN ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST. IT'S GRANTED BASED ON A PREMIUM. BUT THE PREMIUM IS NOT CLEAR TO ME. DO WE KNOW WHAT PROGRAM IS BEING PURSUED? THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER. >> THEY'RE PURSUING THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
PREMIUM WHICH IS TO PROVIDE 50% OF THE BUILDING'S ENERGY AS RENEWABLE. THEY CAN DO THAT THROUGH ON SITE PRODUCTION OF TYPICALLY SOLAR OR THROUGH PURCHASING RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS. >> GREAT, THANK YOU.
>> THIS IS ALSO RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEIGHT INCREASE AND THE PREMIUM. COULD THAT ADMINISTRATIVE HEIGHT INCREASE BE USED FOR THE TWO AND A HALF STORIES INSTEAD OF THE THREE TO THE FOUR? >> THE SITE ITSELF IS LOCATED IN
CORRIDOR THREE BUILT FORUM OVERLAY DISTRICT WHICH ALLOWS THREE STORIES BY RIGHT AND FOR A PREMIUM TO GO UP TO THAT FOUR STORIES. SO THAT PORTION, THAT ADMIN HEIGHT INCREASE APPLIES ONLY TO THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING OUTSIDE OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THE HEIGHT MAXIMUM IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TWO AND A HALF STORIES OR 35 FEET. SO THE ZONING CODE ALLOWS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT, BUT THE PREMIUM DOESN'T APPLY IN THE SAME WAY. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY.
>> THANK YOU, LINDSEY. QUICK METHODOLOGY QUESTION ON THE SOLAR STUDIES. ARE WE EVALUATING THESE SHADOW LENGTH JUST BY VISUALS OR ARE WE GETTING MEASUREMENTS? LIKE HOW ARE YOU COMPARING THEM? >> SO THE APPLICANT HAD PROVIDED
LIKE A SMALL WRITTEN SUMMARY SAYING THAT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO MODEL OUT ANY DIFFERENCES. BUT I KNOW THE APPLICANT HAS THEIR ARCHITECT HERE AS WELL SO THEY CAN PROBABLY SPEAK A LITTLE MORE TO ANY ADDITIONAL DETAIL. BUT STAFF WAS EVALUATING THEM BASED ON THE PROVIDED IMAGES FROM THE SHADOW STUDIES WHICH WE
WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE APPLICANT A COUPLE OF TIMES. SO THE STUDIES THAT ARE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY ARE MORE DETAILED WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT STAFF HAD BEEN REQUESTING. >> OKAY. WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY COME UP. THANK YOU. >> LINDSEY, CAN YOU GO OVER WITH ME ONE MORE TIME WHICH THINGS
ARE UNDER OUR PURVIEW AND WHICH OTHER ONES WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED? UNDER THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SO THE 2.5 TO 3 STORIES IS UNDER OUR PURVIEW. THE REST IS NOT, IS THAT
CORRECT? >> THE SITE PLAN IS UNDER YOUR PURVIEW IN THE EXTENT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR ZONING CODE. IF THERE WERE NO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE OTHER THREE APPLICATIONS WOULD BE ABLE TO BE REVIEWED ADMINISTRATIVELY. I KNOW THERE WERE SOME INITIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER
ABOUT A PROJECT THAT COULD BE REVIEWED FULLY ADMINISTRATIVELY, SO THAT WOULD NOT HAVE INVOLVED ANY PUBLIC HEARING FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT'S REALLY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT TAKES THIS WHOLE PACKAGE FORWARD IN FRONT OF YOU. SO SITE PLAN REVIEW IS UNDER YOUR PURVIEW IF THERE WERE CONDITIONS YOU WANTED TO ADD.
BUT SIMILAR TO OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE ARE KIND OF HIGHER UP ON THE DISCRETIONARY PYRAMID, THERE'S NOT AS MUCH DISCRETION WITH THE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION WHEN THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A BUILDING THAT COMPLIES WITH
THE BUILT FORM DISTRICT AND THE SETBACKS AND ALL OF THAT. >> LOOKING AT WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA, WHICH ONES ARE NOT UNDER OUR PURVIEW? THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEIGHT INCREASE AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE FAR INCREASE. >> OKAY. >> COMMISSIONER MEYER, JUST TO THAT POINT, AND ALSO WE'RE
HANDING THESE OUT, I SAW NOBODY HAS THEIR -- THE FINDINGS RELATED TO THE SOLAR ARRAY ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ARE TIED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEIGHT INCREASE, NOT THE C.U.P. FOR
HEIGHT IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. IT IS ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT IS ESSENTIALLY NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE. >> OKAY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR TO THE AUDIENCE. THE SOLAR STUDIES, NONE OF THAT IS UNDER OUR PURVIEW. >> THERE IS A FINDING UNDER THE C.U.P., UNDER THE HEIGHT
INCREASE THAT YOU CAN FOR AT LEAST THAT REAR PORTION OF THE BUILDING, YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT IN TERMS OF ANY ADDITIONAL IMPACT FROM GOING TO TWO AND A HALF TO THREE ON THAT REAR PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT'S IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. THEY DO HAVE SIMILAR FINDINGS BETWEEN THE ADMIN HEIGHT
INCREASE AND THE C.U.P. FOR HEIGHT IN THE SHORELAND. BUT THE C.U.P. ITSELF IS REALLY ATTACHED TO THAT REAR PORTION OF THE BUILDING. >> OKAY. SO WE'VE APPROVED A LOT OF OTHER
SHORELAND ORDINANCE C.U.P.'S BEFORE. IT'S A PRETTY ROUTINE THING FOR US TO DO. CAN YOU GIVE US THAT CONTEXT, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR WHEN WE'RE EVALUATING THOSE? >> YEAH, WE CAN JUST TALK ABOUT WHAT IS ALLOWED HERE. SO SHERIDAN AVENUE WAS IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE 2040 PLAN
AS BEING A PLACE WHERE ADDITIONAL DENSITY COULD BE LOCATED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I ASSUME THAT SOME OF THAT CAME FROM THE FACT THAT HIGH FREQUENCY BUS ROUTE SIX RUNS ON SHERIDAN WHICH NEXT MONTH WILL BECOME THE E LINE BRT SO THERE'S
EXCELLENT TRANSIT SERVICE, EXCELLENT ACCESS TO AMENITIES, THE LAKES ARE RIGHT THERE. LINDEN HILLS HAS FANTASTIC COMMERCIAL NEAR HERE. THAT CORRIDOR IS IDENTIFIED AS CORRIDOR THREE. THAT MEANS THREE STORY BUILDINGS ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. BUT WHERE THE SHORELAND OVERLAY
DISTRICT EXISTS, THAT DOES REDUCE THE HEIGHT A BIT, THE ALLOWED HEIGHT. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND NOT A VARIANCE. SO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT MAY HAVE TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE WHICH MEANS THAT THEY'RE HAVING TO DEMONSTRATE
THAT THERE'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ON THE SITE RESULTING IN THE INCREASED HEIGHT REQUEST. THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO THESE LARGER BUILDINGS OUTSIDE OF THE LOW DENSITY AREAS BECAUSE THAT WAS A POLICY DECISION MADE AROUND THE TIME OF THE LAND USE
REZONING STUDY THAT THERE MAY BE CASES WHERE THE COMP PLAN HAS IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL DENSITY WHERE IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF A BUILDING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE LIMITED IN HEIGHT BY THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. SO REALLY YOU'RE KIND OF LOOKING AT THE BOX OF WHAT'S ALLOWED THERE.
AND THAT WOULD BE A FOUR STORY BUILDING WITH THE PROVISION OF A PREMIUM. AND THEN YOU'RE KIND OF EVALUATING IS IT APPROPRIATE TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT SLIGHTLY TO MAYBE MEET THOSE GOALS OF THE COMP PLAN ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING CLOSE TO
TRANSIT AND NATURAL AMENITIES, THAT SORT OF THING. >> A LOT OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED ASK US TO DENY ANY VARIANCES. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE ARE NO VARIANCES IN THIS APPLICATION, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THERE ARE NO VARIANCES, THAT IS CORRECT. FOR FOLKS THAT ARE HERE, A
VARIANCE IS SOMETHING IN THE ZONING CODE THAT YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY ASKING, A RULE YOU'RE ASKING TO BREAK IN THE ZONING CODE SPECIFICALLY. WHEREAS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE ZONING CODE IS SOMETHING THAT MAY BE ALLOWED AS LONG AS YOU'RE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE AREN'T ADDITIONAL HARMS BY ALLOWING THAT USE.
SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. THERE'S NO VARIANCE REQUESTED HERE. THE APPLICANT ISN'T REQUESTING TO KIND OF BREAK ANY SORT OF STANDARD THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE SET FORTH. THEY'RE JUST ASKING TO ALLOW A USE WHICH IS ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING, THAT
JUST REQUIRES THIS EXTRA REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. AND JUST FOR THE AUDIENCE AS WE TESTIFY, THERE ARE NO VARIANCES. THERE IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IF THERE ARE CONDITIONS THAT YOU WANT TO SEE OR HARMS THAT YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE CREATED,
THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF THINGS THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO COMMENT ON, BUT THERE ARE NO VARIANCES. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE PROCEED TO THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, LINDSEY.
DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT WITH US? WE'LL GIVE THE APPLICANT TEN MINUTES. >> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS JOSH SEAGULL. FOUNDER AND PRINCIPAL OF JLS DESIGN BUILD. I'M HERE WITH THE ARCHITECTS. WE'LL TAKE THIS AS A DUAL. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT.
OUR PROPOSAL FOR 4109, 4113 SHERIDAN, WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO BRING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THEIR DETAILED AND PROFESSIONAL REVIEW AND THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE ENGAGED THOUGHTFULLY THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. WE SHARE A COMMON GOAL TO ENSURE THAT WHAT'S BUILT IN LINDEN
HILLS ENHANCES THIS EXTRAORDINARY NEIGHBORHOOD AND REFLECTS ITS LEGACY. THIS PROJECT REPRESENTS YEARS OF CAREFUL DESIGN REFINEMENT TO CREATE THE SMALL SCALE HIGH QUALITY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING THAT STRENGTHENS THE FABRIC OF LINDEN HILLS COMMUNITY. WE FULLY UNDERSTAND AND
APPRECIATE THE PRIDE RESIDENTS FEEL FOR THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE LIVE AND WORK HERE TOO. THE SAME PRIDE IS WHAT GUIDED EVERY DESIGN DECISION WE MADE. THAT'S WHY OUR BUILDING MATCHING IS INTENTIONALLY SET BACK FROM THE STREET, USES WARM MATERIALS
LIKE BRICK AND WOOD, AND IS SCALED TO COMPLEMENT THE RHYTHM OF SHERIDAN AVENUE. WE'VE LISTENED CAREFULLY TO COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND MADE MULTIPLE REFINEMENTS. I'D LIKE TO BRING IN JOSH TO DISCUSS THE SHADOW AND VISIBILITY STUDIES AND WE WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND
CONCLUDE. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. IS THERE A WAY TO ACCESS THIS FOR -- >> YES. CAN WE HAVE SOMEONE HELP HIM OUT WITH THAT? >> IF YOU JUST PUT IT ON THERE, THE TECH TEAM CAN PULL IT UP FOR YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE SEEING IT
HERE. >> WE CAN SEE IT FINE. >> OKAY, GREAT. I WANTED TO ADDRESS FIRST AND FOREMOST THE 15-FOOT SETBACK ALONG SHERIDAN. AND IT WAS STATED THAT WE SETBACK THE BUILDING EVEN
FURTHER FOR DRIVE ACCESS. YES, WE DID THAT, BUT A GOOD PORTION OF THAT BUILDING COULD BE PUSHED FURTHER TO SHERIDAN, BUT TRYING TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, WE WANTED TO REFLECT THE SETBACKS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ALONG SHERIDAN AVENUE.
SO I WILL POINT JUST REALLY QUICK, IT WAS DESCRIBED AS THE COLUMN ON THE LEFT IS OUR PROPOSED BUILDING. THE COLUMN IN THE MIDDLE IS OUR EXHIBIT 1 WHICH THE PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT WOULD BE THE SAME.
OR THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT WOULD BE THE SAME AS THE PROPOSED WITH A REDUCTION IN THE HEIGHT TO 42 FEET IN THE FRONT HALF ALONG SHERIDAN AND 35 FEET IN THE REAR WITH SEVEN FOOT YARD SETBACKS. THE EXHIBIT 2 TAKES THAT
FOOTPRINT AND SHORTENS IT FOR THE 75% OF THE TOTAL LENGTH OF THE LOT WIDTH. SO IN THESE FINDINGS, I THINK . BAXLEY, YOU EXPRESSED HOW WAS THIS GENERATED?
SO WE'RE USING, WE'RE AT THE CONFINES OF THE PROGRAM THAT WE'RE USING. SO WHAT WAS IMPORTANT TO US WAS THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT, THE SITE HAS A TON OF TOPOGRAPHY IN THIS AREA. SHERIDAN IS VERY LOW. EVERYTHING COMES UP.
SO WHAT REALLY WAS I GUESS THE IMPETUS FOR THE STUDY WAS TRYING TO SEE THE EFFECT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND OBVIOUSLY THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH. IN THESE FINDINGS OF THESE THREE SCENARIOS, I THINK YOU CAN SEE
FOR THE MOST PART IN THE ATUMNAL DATES OF MARCH 31ST AND SEPTEMBER 21ST, YOU'RE SEEING A VERY CONSISTENT SHADOW PATTERN. AND THEN WHERE WE GET INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFECT ON THE
PROJECT WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY THE EXTREMES. DECEMBER 21ST WHERE YOU'RE STARTING TO SEE THOSE EARLY MORNING AND LATE SUNSET SHADOWS
AFFECTING THAT NORTH PROPERTY. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE
APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER SHEPPARD. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, JOSH, THE EXHIBITS 1 AND 2 ARE WHAT YOU CAN BUILD WITHOUT EVEN VISITING US? >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> THANKS, JOSH. SO JUST ON THE -- WE HAVEN'T
ACTUALLY MEASURED SHADOW LENGTH DIFFERENCES, IT'S REALLY GRAPHICALLY DEPICTED HERE, RIGHT? OKAY, THANKS. >> COMMISSIONER GORDON. >> THIS IS JUST A QUESTION ABOUT THE INCLUSION OF ENCLOSED PARKING. HOW MUCH IS THE ENCLOSED PARKING ADDING TO THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF
THE STRUCTURE. I KNOW YOU'RE GETTING A PREMIUM FOR THAT FOR THE FAR. WOULD THE HEIGHT BE LESS WITHOUT THE ENCLOSED PARKING? >> WITHOUT PARKING AT ALL. >> YEAH, IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT PARKING LEVEL?
>> YOU WOULD BE DROPPING THE BUILDING A LITTLE BIT. >> HOW MUCH? >> GIVE ME A SECOND.
>> DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING THAT UP? >> ROUGHLY FIVE FEET. >> ROUGHLY FIVE FEET. AND GIVEN THAT YOU'RE AT A SCHEMATIC LEVEL DESIGN AND YOU'RE USING EARLY ON PROBABLY SKETCH UP OR SOMETHING TO DESIGN THIS. HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU IN YOUR SLOPES FOR THE PARKING AND THE
R REPERCUSSIONS OF STRUCTURAL CHANGES AS THE DESIGN CHANGES. SOMETIMES AS THE DESIGN DEVELOPS YOU GET A THICKER SLAB, YOU DROP THE HEIGHT IN ORDER TO GET THE CLEARANCE FOR A VEHICLE? >> GOOD QUESTION. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT BASICALLY SETS THE BUILDING.
SO THAT'S PART OF THE APPLICATION. WE VETTED THAT IN TERMS OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEM. WHAT OUR PODIUM WOULD BE, THE THICKNESS OF THAT TO GET APPROPRIATE CLEARANCE AND A RAMP DOWN THAT IS NOT EXCESSIVE.
SO I THINK THAT AND THEN TO YOUR POINT ON USING SKETCH UP, VERIFYING IN THE DOCUMENT YOU CAN SEE A COUPLE OF KEY PEAK HEIGHTS OF THE NEIGHBORING PARCELS AND THE HOUSES THAT YOU CAN GET PRETTY EASILY OFF OF
GOOGLE EARTH. SO SETTING OUR BUILDING RELATIVE TO THOSE PEAKS AND THE ELEVATION ON SHERIDAN AVENUE MAKE ME FEEL VERY CONFIDENT ON THE SHADOW STUDIES THAT I PROVIDED. >> OKAY, THANKS.
>> ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU. SO FAR WE HAVE I BELIEVE 19 PEOPLE WHO ARE SIGNED UP. SO I'M GOING TO BE READING THEM IN ORDER. PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF I MISPRONOUNCE YOUR NAME. AND JUST A REMINDER, YOU HAVE
TWO MINUTES AND YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY SIGNED UP, PLEASE SIGN UP. I'M ONLY GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE SPEAK WHO SIGNED UP. SO FIRST WE HAVE JEROME RITTER WHO WILL BE FOLLOWED BY SIMON
COHEN. JEROME. WELCOME, INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. >> I'M JERRY RITTER. I HAVE LIVED AT 4108 SHERIDAN AVENUE FOR 54 YEARS. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH ZONING
AND BUILDING CODES IN MINNEAPOLIS. I'VE DONE OVER 100 PROJECTS IN MINNEAPOLIS INCLUDING SOME OF THE LARGEST BUILDINGS, LARGEST PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN THE CITY.
I WAS THE ARCHITECT IN CHARGE. I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THIS PROPOSAL. I WANT YOU TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE DRAWINGS THAT WERE PRESENTED TODAY DO NOT -- THERE'S NO DIMENSION FOR THE TOP OF THE
BUILDING IF YOU'LL NOTICE THAT. AND ALSO THE THREE STORY BUILDING THE DIMENSIONS DON'T
SHOW THE GUARDRAIL AT THE OCCUPIED THIRD ROOF LEVEL. THE DRAWING THAT WAS SHOWN AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION SHOWS
NONEXISTENT TREES ON EACH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE AND DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS. A MORE ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE SHOWN IN
THE COMMENT SECTION THAT I PROVIDED TO THIS PLANNING COMMISSION. I'M DEEPLY DISTURBED AS TO HOW THIS TRANSPIRED TO BE APPROVED.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, ONCE YOU'VE GRANTED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THIS, THE CITY WILL HAVE SET A PRECEDENT FOR ZONING DISTRICTS -- FOR THESE ZONING DISTRICTS AND ONCE THOSE PRECEDENTS ARE CROSSED, IT'S
VERY DIFFICULT TO RESCIND THEM. WE ASK THAT THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE DENIED. AT A MINIMUM WE ASK THAT THE REQUEST BE TABLED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY
THE NEIGHBORHOOD BE ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED. >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE SIMON COHEN FOLLOWED BY TIM GUSTIN.
>> I'M SIMON OF 4007 SHERIDAN AVENUE SOUTH. ON THE DEVELOPER'S WEBSITE, IT STATES THAT THEY TRANSFORM UNDERPERFORMING REAL ESTATE INTO THRIVING PROPERTIES. IS IT THIS COMMISSION'S OPINION THAT THE LINDEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IS UNDERPERFORMING AND NOT THRIVING. DOES THIS MEAN THAT ANY SINGLE
FAMILY HOME IS UNDERPERFORMING AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DEVELOPED? ON THE LAND USE APPLICATION IT STATES THE FOLLOWING GOALS FOR MINNEAPOLIS 2040 APPLY TO THE PROPOSAL GOAL THREE, AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE HOUSING. WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING? THE CURRENT MEDIAN HOME SALE
PRICE IN OUR ZIP CODE IS $475,000. IT'S RUMORED THAT EACH CONDO WILL SELL FOR ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS EACH. HOW CAN YOU ARGUE THIS SUPPORTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
IN A LETTER TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, THEY WROTE WE SEE IT FOLLOWING DESIGN PRECEDENT IN SHERIDAN HILLS. THE ORIGINAL NAME OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS COTTAGE CITY. MY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1804, THE
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM IS FAR FROM FOLLOWING HISTORIC DESIGN PRECEDENT. IS THIS THE CASE OF A DEVELOPER SAYING ANYTHING TO A NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET APPROVAL. ALSO THEY STATED THEY'RE COMMITTED TO OPEN, TRANSPARENT COMMUNICATION THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. I LIVE 500 FEET FROM THE SITE AND THE FIRST I HEARD OF THIS WAS LAST WEEK FROM A NEIGHBOR.
JLS DID NOT HAVE THE COURTESY TO SEND ME A MAILER OR STOP BY TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES. THIS IS AN ESTABLISHED PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR FOR JLS. THEY ALSO PURCHASED THE LOT NEXT DOOR TO ME AND PLAN TO DEMOLISH IT AND BUILD THREE MORE UNITS. THEY HAVE YET TO KNOCK ON MY
DOOR OR INTRODUCE THEMSELVES. I AGAIN FOUND OUT FROM A NEIGHBOR. IF JLS CARED ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY, THEY WOULD HAVE INFORMED US AND STARTED A MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE. I URGE YOU NOT TO APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE YOU'RE SETTING A PRECEDENT THAT ANY DEVELOPER CAN BULLDOZE OUR
UNDERPERFORMING NEIGHBORHOOD SIMPLY SO THEY CAN MAKE A PROFIT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE TIM GUSTIN FOLLOWED BY KATE SCHUYLER. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS TIM GUSTIN. MY WIFE KATE AND I LIVE AT 4037 SHERIDAN AFTER SOUTH ALONG WITH MY SON AND DAUGHTER WHO ATTEND MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOL. I'LL ADMIT I'M A REAL ESTATE LAWYER. I HAVE A FOCUS ON MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. I MAKE A LIVING IN THIS SPACE
AND I'M NOT AGAINST DENSITY. HOWEVER, I CANNOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN ITS CURRENT FORM. IT PRESENTS ALARMING SAFETY RISKS TO OUR COMMUNITY. WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL IS ALONG A TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. THE PROJECT HOWEVER DOES NOT
PROMOTE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. INSTEAD IT PROPOSES 26 UNDERGROUND PARKING SPOTS. 26 ON TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE ONLY ACCESS TO THESE 26 SPACES SHERIDAN AVENUE SOUTH. THERE HAVE BEEN NO TRAFFIC
STUDIES, NO SAFETY STUDIES, AND LET'S BE FRANK HERE, WE DON'T NEED ANY. THE IDEA OF ADDING 26 PARKING STUDIES TO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS IS CRAZY. COULD YOU IMAGINE IF I HAD 13 CARS IN MY DRIVEWAY AND MY NEIGHBOR HAD 13 IN THEIRS? ANYONE WHO LIVES ON SHERIDAN KNOWS HOW DIFFICULT IT IS
ALREADY GETTING IN AND OUT OF YOUR DRIVEWAY. IT'S A BUSY STREET. FAST MOVING TRAFFIC, NO CROSSWALKS, NO SPEED BUMPS, NO TRAFFIC SIGNALS. PARKING IS ALLOWED ONLY ON ONE SIDE SO CARS WITH MOVE SWIFTLY. BUSES ARE ON THE FLY.
SHERIDAN IS USED BY MANY. MOTORISTS, RUNNERS, BIKERS, WALKERS, YOUNG CHILDREN GOING TO THE NEARBY DAYCARE, ELDERLY GOING TO THE NEARBY CHURCH. AND RECENTLY CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO SHERIDAN TO ALLOW FOR INCREASED AND EVEN FASTER BUS
TRANSIT. NOW LET'S THROW ANOTHER 26 VEHICLES INTO THE MIX. ALL GOING IN AND OUT OF THAT SAME DRIVEWAY, THAT BELOW GRADE DRIVEWAY. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT PROPOSAL TO SAFELY FUNCTION.
OF THE 26 PARKING SPACES IT WAS POINTED OUT EARLIER, 16 ARE PART OF A TANDEM. THE PUZZLE PIECES ARE BEING FORCED. IT DOESN'T WORK. THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT IS SIMPLY TOO BIG FOR TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS. WE CANNOT RISK EVERYONE'S SAFETY. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DENY THIS PROPOSAL.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE KATE SCHUYLER FOLLOWED BY LITA ELAMAD. >> MY NAME IS KATE SCHUYLER.
I LIVE AT 4027 SHERIDAN AVENUE SOUTH WITH MY HUSBAND TIM AND HIS TWO TEENAGE CHILDREN. I'D LIKE TO ECHO MY HUSBAND'S CONCERN AROUND THE GENERAL SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SPEED OF THE CARS DOWN SHERIDAN ON AN ALREADY BUSY PEDESTRIAN
BICYCLE CAR INTERSECTION THAT CARRIES NO SIDEWALK DESPITE ITS PROXIMITY TO DAYCARES. BEYOND MY CONCERNS IS THE PRECEDENT THIS WOULD SET FOR OUR ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THIS BUILDING ARE INCONGRUENT WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURES.
THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT EXISTS FOR A REASON. I THINK IT'S A TIME TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THIS PROJECT FITS WITHIN ITS ALLEGED SCOPE AND WILL NOT DIMINISH THE RICH LANDSCAPE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HOLDS. I HOPE THE CITY HAS FINISHED
THEIR DUE DILIGENCE WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF SCRUTINY. I HOPE THEY NOTICED THE PHOTOS PRESENTED BY JLS AS EVIDENCE THAT THIS DOES NOT DISRUPT THE LANDSCAPE WERE TAKEN IN FULL
FOLIAGE MONTHS WHICH WE HAVE TWO MONTHS OF THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. THESE PHOTOS OF THE AREA ARE NOT OF THEIR INTENDED DEVELOPMENT AREA. THEY WERE TAKEN ROUGHLY A HALF MILE SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED SITE. UNLESS THERE IS FURTHER EVIDENCE PROVIDED THAT I AM NOT PRIVY TO,
THESE PHOTOS ARE INACCURATE AND MISLEADING. PRECEDENCE IS CRITICAL. AND WHILE I AM VERY PRO DENSITY, I BELIEVE IN THOUGHTFUL AND PRACTICAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT ENHANCE AND BRING DIVERSITY TO NEIGHBORHOODS. I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT DOES NEITHER. AT A MINIMUM, THE CITY SHOULD
POSTPONE APPROVAL FOR THIS PRECEDENT SETTING PROJECT UNTIL WE CAN BE SURE THAT IT DOES NOT COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. LITA AND THEN NEXT WILL BE KITTY CHRISTIANSON. >> THANK YOU.
LITA. I ACTUALLY DO NOT LIVE NEAR THE SHERIDAN AREA. I LIVE FURTHER AWAY BUT AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD SET. I DO HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT I WANT TO ASK THOUGH.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS DISCUSSION, THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS OR IS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION. WHAT I HEARD STAFF SAY WAS THAT THERE WAS A PIECE THAT BROUGHT THIS FORWARD FOR DISCUSSION, BUT THAT THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW WAS STILL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF
THE COMMISSION. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR THAT THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION EVEN IF IT COULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED OR NOT. AM I INCORRECT IN THAT
ASSESSMENT? >> WE DON'T GET INTO BACK AND FORTH. WE DON'T DO QUESTIONS, BUT WE'LL CLARIFY THAT AFTER THE HEARING IS OVER. >> OKAY. I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH
THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AS THE FOLKS BEFORE ME HAVE NOTED. I'M NOT WHOLLY OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS NATURE, I JUST BELIEVE THERE'S AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THEM. I HAPPEN TO NEAR THE JUNCTURE OF 44th AND FRANCE IN A SINGLE HOME
ACROSS FROM A BUILDING ZONED FOR FOUR STORY BUILDINGS. WHILE I DON'T RELISH THE THOUGHT OF A PROJECT TAKING PLACE CLOSE TO MY HOME, I UNDERSTAND THE ZONING FOR IT. IT'S IN CONNECTION WITH A BUSINESS DISTRICT ALLOWING FOR THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC YOU HEAR
OTHERS EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT. THE PROPOSED LOCATION ON SHERIDAN HAS NEITHER OF THESE ATTRIBUTES AND THEREFORE I BELIEVE IT IS ZONED TO NOT ALLOW FOR SUCH A PROJECT. MOST IMPORTANTLY HOWEVER, AS OUTLINED IN THE LETTER FROM MR. DEVINKY, THIS PROPOSAL DOES
NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE AND THEREFORE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S LAWS. WHILE I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN FAIRLY USED TO OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROWING OUR LAWS TO THE WIND, I REALLY HOPE THAT MINNEAPOLIS DOESN'T FOLLOW SUIT AND THEREFORE I ASK THAT YOU DO
NOT APPROVE THIS OR AT THE VERY LEAST TABLE THIS DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. KITTY CHRISTIANSON AND THEN NEXT MATT LOCKHART.
>> HI. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE MY PERSPECTIVE. MY NAME IS KITTY CHRISTIANSON. I LIVE AT 4121 LINDEN HILLS BOULE BOULEVARD. AND I'VE LIVED IN THAT HOME FOR 50 YEARS, RAISED MY CHILDREN
THERE. I ALSO OWNED THE FIVE PLEX NEXT DOOR TO ME AND ANOTHER FIVE PLEX ON QUEENS AVENUE SOUTH. I AM SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE COMPLIANCE CONDITIONAL USE
OR WHATEVER THE TERMINOLOGY IS. SO I'M NOT AGAINST A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. BUT I DO THINK THE GOAL OF 2040 WAS TO INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THIS PROJECT CERTAINLY DOES
NOT DO THAT. I'VE BEEN AGING IN MY HOME. I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT HOMES IN LINDEN HILLS SO THAT I CAN CONTINUE TO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY. AND EVERY NEW DEVELOPMENT IS IN EXCESS OF $1 MILLION, MORE LIKE 1.5.
SO I COULDN'T EVEN SELL MY HOUSE AND MOVE INTO THIS BUILDING. I RAISED MY CHILDREN HERE IN THE COMMUNITY AND I HAVE CONCERNS THAT WHAT WILL BE DISPLACED ARE FAMILY HOMES. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR
PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT. I CHERISH THE HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE OF THE COMMUNITY. I CHERISH LAKE HARRIET AND THE PURITY OF THE WATER. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS GROUND THAT WILL
BE INCREASED DUE TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. I THINK THAT SHERIDAN IS UNIQUE IN THAT IT'S NOT AS BUSY OF A CORRIDOR AS LIKE LAKE STREET OR HENNEPIN BECAUSE OF ITS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THIS PROJECT IS PLOPPED RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. IT'S NOT ON A CORNER. AND IT'S NOT NEAR THE COMMERCIAL ZONE. >> THANK YOU. MATT LOCKHART AND THEN NEXT WILL
BE LETI LINDBERG. >> I'M MATT LOCKHART. I LIVE AT 4017 SHERIDAN. THANK YOU FOR THE IMPORTANT WORK THAT YOU DO. I'M ALL FOR THOUGHTFUL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT FITS IN THE
MEANS OF THOUGHTFUL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TO GRANT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, YOU NEED TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NOT HARM OR THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT INJURIOUS TO THE
IMMEDIATE COMMUNITY. WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE POTENTIAL ISSUES DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE SHADOWS CAUSED. I HAVE NOT HEARD NOR DO I UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S BEEN ANY STUDIES OF SUCH A LARGE
IMPERVIOUS STRUCTURE AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE COMMUNITY. NOT JUST THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE LAKE BUT THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. WILL IT CAUSE ADDITIONAL FLOODING? I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING WITH
RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT PARKING IS ALREADY AN ISSUE ON SHERIDAN AVENUE AT THAT POINT. NOW, THE UNDERGROUND PARKING FOR RESIDENTS CERTAINLY IS NOT ALL OF THE PARKING THAT WILL BE
CAUSED BY SUCH A LARGE MULTIUNIT STRUCTURE. AND SO PARKING NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED OBVIOUSLY. WE HEARD FROM MY NEIGHBOR ABOUT THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS WHICH ARE REAL AND WILL ONLY BE INCREASED BY THIS PROJECT.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW THE LEGALITY OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY SITUATION, AND THE FRAACT THAT CUTS THROUGH THE BUILDING. CAN YOU CUT THE BUILDING IN HALF OR DOESN'T THE ENTIRETY OF THE STRUCTURE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED
AS PART OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY SITUATION? SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF REASONS. NOW DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE STAFF COMMENTS THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS OBVIOUSLY FALSE.
IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR THE VERY LEAST TABLE IT UNTIL REAL CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE LETI LINDBERG AND I'M NOT SURE HOW TO READ THAT. MOLLY FALK. >> LETI DECIDED NOT TO SPEAK BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE HER TIME, I
WAS SITTING NEXT TO HER. I'M LAUREL BRAUN I LIVE AT -- NOT ON SHERIDAN. I HAVE MANY CONCERNS, BUT MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS ABOUT SAFETY IN THE AREA I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING SPOKEN OBJECT THAT SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A PURVIEW FOR YOUR COMMITTEE.
BUT AS OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID THIS IS A CORRIDOR FOR PEOPLE TO WALK, BIKE, AND OTHERWISE TRAVEL TO LAKE HARRIET FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER AREAS. AND THE CONGESTION OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, THE SINGLE IN AND OUT OF THE PARKING RAMP ET CETERA IS
A BIG CONCERN. THERE'S A LOT OF KIDS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA. A LOT OF BIKING AND PEDESTRIANS AND CAR TRAFFIC IS ALREADY KIND OF A JUMBLE AND ESPECIALLY AT THAT SPOT. SO YOU DRIVE UP 42nd, YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE A LEFT OR A RIGHT, THERE'S TRAFFIC GOING ALL THE TIME. THERE'S PEOPLE TRYING TO WALK.
THERE'S BIKERS GOING BY. THERE'S OLD PEOPLE MOVING SLOWLY. CHILDREN RUNNING ALL OVER THE PLACE. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING THAT SAYS THAT THERE WAS ANY CONCERN ABOUT THE CROSSING OF THOSE STREETS, THE GETTING DOWN TO LAKE HARRIET WHICH THAT IS A MAJOR PLACE WHERE PEOPLE GO TO
GET DOWN TO LAKE HARRIET FROM ANYWHERE ELSE. SO MY MAJOR CONCERN RIGHT NOW IS THE LACK OF ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE THAT ARE WALKING, BIKING, TRAVELLING IN THAT AREA WITH A
DENSELY POPULATED 26 CARS IN TWO LOTS THAT WILL BE ALSO USING THAT SAME 42nd AND SHERIDAN AREA. SO THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE MOLLY? OKAY, GREAT. THEN AFTER THAT WILL BE ANDY
SOMETHING. >> YES, I'M MOLLY FALK. I'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 50 SOME YEARS. AND AT THIS POINT I'LL PASS BECAUSE MANY OF MY CONCERNS ARE BEING ADDRESSED.
THANK YOU. OKAY, DO WE HAVE ANDY? >> I'M ANDY, I LIVE AT 4530 SHERIDAN. WE'VE LIVED THERE FOR 16 YEARS. I'VE RAISED MY KIDS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IF YOU ARE UNFAMILIAR, THERE IS
A STOPLIGHT ON 39TH AND SHERIDAN. AND A STOPLIGHT ON 43rd. SO THERE'S A FOUR BLOCK CORRIDOR WITH NO STOPLIGHTS, NO STOP SIGNS.
I LIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT. SO CROSSING AT 42nd IS CONSTANT KIDS COMING DOWN. I WAS A STAY AT HOME PARENT, I SPENT MY DAYS WALKING AND BIKING
MY KIDS TO SCHOOLS AND PARKS. I KNOW HOW BAD IT COULD BE AND I HAD TO BE SO CAREFUL WITH MY KIDS ON SHERIDAN. THE BUSES ARE GOING FASTER THAN EVER. THE NEW BUS PLAN, WE WATCH THE BUSES GO DOWN THE ROAD AT 40 MILES AN HOUR.
WE HAVE PARKING ON CERTAIN DAYS WHEN PEOPLE ON A NICE DAY WHEN PEOPLE COME DOWN TO A BAND SHELL, PARKING IS ALREADY UP TO OUR DRIVEWAYS. SO YOU HAVE A HARD TIME PULLING OUT, KIDS HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING. ADDING 26 MORE VEHICLES IS NOT A
GOOD IDEA. THERE'S BEEN NO PLAN FOR MAYBE A STOP SIGN AT 42nd. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY WANT THIS BUS ROUTE. SO ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE MAKING IT A LOT MORE DANGEROUS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ON TOP OF THAT, MY KIDS, WE MOVED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
BECAUSE OF THE LAKES. THE SHORELAND OVERLAY IS THERE FOR A REASON. WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE LAKES. THIS BUILDING IS TAKING A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF SPACE, HARD SPACE, ALL OF THE DRAINS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE GUTTERS
FLOW RIGHT INTO THE LAKE. THE POLLUTION THAT WILL COME OFF OF THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO EXACERBATE WHAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING AROUND THE LAKES IN MINNEAPOLIS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
NEXT WE HAVE SADIE STRAUSS. AND THEN -- >> MY NAME IS SADIE STRAUSS, I LIVE TWO HOUSES DOWN FROM THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. PRIOR TO MOVING TO LINDEN HILLS I LIVED IN BROOKLYN, NEW YORK AND LONDON. TWO CITIES WHO BALANCE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS WITH HIGH DENSITY LIVING. I WANT TO LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE BUILDINGS. I BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF
BUILDING MORE HOUSING, BUT I BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE DONE CORRECTLY AND CONSIDERATELY. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS PROPOSAL, I HAVE TWO CONCERNS, COMMUNITY SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. I HAVE TWO YOUNG KIDS. WE WALK AND BIKE TO GET TO LAKE HARRIET ALONG SHERIDAN AVENUE. DURING THIS WALK, I SEE FIRST
HAND EVERYTHING THAT IS ASKED OF THE STREET, THE DAYCARE GOERS, THE CHURCH GOERS, THE PACKAGE AND DELIVERY COMPANIES, THE GUESTS OF NEIGHBORS ALL STRUGGLING TO FIND PARKING ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITH TRAFFIC GOING BY. IT WILL BE ADDING TO THE NEED OF
GUEST AND DELIVERY AND REPAIR PARKING. THE 26 CARS PULLING OUT UNDERGROUND PARKING WILL HAVE DIFFICULTY SEEING MANY WALKERS WHO USE SHERIDAN TO CONNECT WITH THE 42nd TO WALK TO LAKE HARRIET. CARS WILL BE BUSY TURNING OUT AND MIGHT NOT SEE BIKERS UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
THERE ARE NO CROSSWALKS IN THE AREA OF SHERIDAN AND DUE TO ITS STAGGERED INTERSECTION AT 42nd, STREET PEDESTRIANS ARE OFTEN CROSSING AT UNPREDICTABLE SPOTS. THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS ALSO HAS A GOAL OF PEDESTRIAN/BIKER SAFETY WITH THEIR VISION 0 PLAN.
I URGE THE CITY TO NOT APPROVE THIS PROPOSAL AT THIS TIME UNTIL WE ARE ABLE TO DO A PROPER SAFETY CONSULT OF THE INTERSECTION AND IMPACT THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE ON THE SAFETY AND WALKABILITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MY SECOND CONCERN IS WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT. TO CREATE THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT,
TWO NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS WERE REMOVED AND THE FINISHED DEVELOPMENT WILL BLOCK THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SOLAR PANELS ALREADY INSTALLED. THEY'RE ASKING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THEIR 50% ENERGY TO BE RENEWABLE, BUT THE PLAN TO USE THIS IS BY USING OFFSETS
WHICH HAVE NO PLAN OF BEING RENEWABLE WITHIN A YEAR. INSTEAD THEY SHOULD MATCH THE SUSTAINABLE BUILDING EXPECTATIONS OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS. I AM ASKING THE CITY TO NOT APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR HEIGHT UNTIL A MORE SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PLAN IS PUT FORWARD.
I HAVE NOTES BECAUSE I THOUGHT I HAD THREE MINUTES. CAN I TURN THIS ANYWHERE TO BE READ? >> YOU CAN TURN IT INTO THE CLERK AND WE'LL ADD IT TO THE PUBLIC RECORD. >> THANK YOU. >> DO WE HAVE KRISTIN? >> CHRISTA. THAT'S MY HANDWRITING. >> I HAVE THE YELLOW COPY WHICH
MEANS I'M NOT GETTING AS CLEAR OF THE NAMES. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. >> MY NAME IS CHRISTA ANDERS. FOR 25 YEARS, MY PARTNER TOM McLEOD AND I HAVE LIVED DIRECT LE BEHIND THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
WE HAVE INVESTED IN OUR HOME AND OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN MINNEAPOLIS. THIS PROJECT WILL CAUSE DEMONSTRABLE HARMO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THIS BUILDING WOULD LOOM JUST FEET FROM OUR PROPERTY LINE. A MASSIVE WALL DWARFING OUR 1905
HOME. WE SPECIFICALLY RENOVATED OUR HOME WITH ARCHITECTS ALLOWING WINDOWS THROUGHOUT FOR NATURAL LIGHT AND A BEDROOM DECK OVERLOOKING THE YARD. THIS PROJECT WILL ELIMINATE OUR ASSETS OF OUR BACKYARD. WE LOSE ALL PRIVACY.
OUR BEDROOM AND BATHROOM DIRECTLY FACE THIS PROPOSED WALL. WE'LL LOSE THE NATURAL LIGHT WE DESIGNED OUR HOME TO CAPTURE. OUR PROPERTY VALUE WILL PLUMMET. THIS IS TEXTBOOK INJURY TO ADJACENT PROPERTY. ADEQUATE PROTECTION HAS NOT BEEN
PROVIDED. THE ALLEY BETWEEN OUR HOUSE AND THIS PROJECT IS ACTUALLY ELEVATED. WE HAVE A LONG RETAINING WALL WE SUSPECT WILL COLLAPSE FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND THE WEIGHT OF ALL OF THIS. WE ALREADY EXPERIENCE WATER INFILTRATION FROM THE LOT INTO
OUR BUILDING IN THE BACK. SO WHEN THESE LOTS ARE COVERED WITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE INSTEAD OF GRASS, WHERE WILL THAT WATER GO? IT WILL GO INTO OUR BUILDING. NO STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT OR DRAINAGE PLAN HAS BEEN PROVIDED. THIS VIOLATES BASIC DUE
DILIGENCE REQUIREMENTS. THIRD, THIS PROCESS IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. SEAGULL IS TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE SAID HE CAREFULLY LISTENED TO THE NEIGHBORS, THERE'S BEEN ONE MEETING ON A FRIDAY NIGHT. FOURTH, WE QUESTIONED THE LEGAL COMPLIANCE, THIS NEEDS
RESOLUTION BEFORE APPROVAL. I ANTICIPATE WE'LL BE DISMISSED AB NIMBYS. WE'RE NOT OPPOSING DENSITY. WE'VE HAD SEVEN UNITS OF HOUSING IN OUR BACKYARD. WE'RE OPPOSING EXCESSIVE DENSITY
THAT VIOLATES THE CITY'S STANDARDS. WE'RE ASKING YOU TO SIMPLY ENFORCE YOUR OWN RULES. REQUIRE A DRAINAGE PLAN, ADEQUATE NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT AND SETBACKS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
WE HAVE ANTHONY ROSS FOLLOWED BY JEFF STEIN. ALL RIGHT, NOT SEEING ANTHONY. WELCOME. INTRODUCE YOURSELF. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. I'M ANTHONY ROSS.
I'M A RESIDENT OF 4111LINDEN HILLS BOULEVARD DIRECTLY EAST OF THE PROJECT. I'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 38 YEARS. I URGE YOU TO NOT LET THIS PROJECT GO FORWARD. I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT. I'VE HEARD A LOT OF BRILLIANT
STATEMENTS, I AGREE WITH ALMOST ALL OF THEM, ENVIRONMENTALLY, SAFETY, DUE DILIGENCE. PRECEDENT OF FOUR-STORY BUILDING GOING IN OUR BEAUTIFUL NEIGHB NEIGHBORHOOD. I SEE THIS PROJECT, IT WILL BE
SEEN IF IT'S BUILT AS A BEHEMOTH IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. A BEHEMOTH THAT DWARFS THESE BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC HOMES THAT SURROUND IT. SO I THINK THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THIS PART OF LINDEN HILLS ESPECIALLY WILL BE SEVERELY
DEGRADED IF THIS GOES FORWARD. SO PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE JEFF STEINLY AND THEN TODD WACHIK. >> HELLO, COMMISSIONERS.
NICE TO SEE SO MANY NEIGHBORS HERE. MY NAME IS JEFF STEINLY AND I LIVE WITH MY WIFE, OUR SIX KIDS, TWO DOGS, AND A CAT AT 4106LINDEN HILLS BOULEVARD WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS SITE. LIKE A LOT OF MY NEIGHBORS WE
SUPPORT SMART CONTACT SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT THAT IS DIRECTLY IN OUR BACKYARD AND THIS ONE IS DIRECTLY IN OUR BACKYARD. THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT SMART CONTACT SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT. IT IS OVERSIZED FOR THE SITE. AT ODDS WITH THE SHORELAND
DIRECTIVES. YOUR APPROVAL WOULD CREATE A HARMFUL PRECEDENT WELL BEYOND THIS BLOCK. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS OR AT A MINIMUM CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION FOR FURTHER STUDY AND SOME GENUINE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. AT ITS CORE THE PROJECT'S SCALE
IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPOSED BUILDING MASS RISES TO AN EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF 52 FEET. IT PRESENTS A THREE-STORY WALL ON OUR PROPERTY LINE. AND A FOURTH STORY ABOVE THAT. THE MASSING WILL BLOCK AFTERNOON WESTERN LIGHT TO OUR HOME AND
ERASE ANY MEANINGFUL GREEN BUFFER THAT EXISTS TODAY. ON OUR SIDE OF THE PLAN IT SHOWS ONLY A DRAINAGE SOIL, THERE'S NO TREES, NO FENCING. THERE'S NO PLANTINGS. THE DEVELOPER SUGGESTS THE BUILDING WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE AND THE STAFF
RELIED ON THE PHOTO STUDY THAT THEY PRESENTED. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE. IF YOU STAND ON THE RIDGE LINE OF MY HOUSE, YOU CAN SEE THE LAKE. THIS BUILDING WILL BE MUCH TALLER THAN MINE, I'D ASK THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW THAT AND ACTUALLY GET SOME REAL FACTS ABOUT WHETHER THEY'LL BE ABLE TO
SEE THE LAKE FROM THEIR BUILDING. THE PURPOSE CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE CLAIMS OF NONVISIBILITY AND IT ALSO ISN'T CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY. LIKE OTHERS I AGREE THAT THIS
WOULD SET A PRECEDENT THAT WILL REVERBERATE CITY WIDE. AND I'VE GOT LITTLE CONFIDENCE THAT THIS DEVELOPER, BASED ON HOW THEY'VE BEEN AS A NEIGHBOR SO FAR THAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO SAFELY EXECUTE THIS PLAN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
NEXT WE HAVE TODD WACHIK FOLLOWED BY LAURIE BUSHBOMB. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TODD WACHIK. I'VE LIVED IN LINDEN HILLS
BOULEVARD WITH MY BACKYARD DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE. I AM HERE TO STRONGLY OPPOSE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR THIS PROJECT. LINDEN HILLS IS A COMMUNITY DEFINED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, SMALL MULTIUNIT HOMES AND THIS
DEVELOPMENT IS PLANNING TO INSERT FOUR STORY 53 FOOT LUXURY CONDOS INTO THE AREA. THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR. IT IS NOT BUFFERED BY AN ALLEY AND IT IS SURROUNDED BY FAMILY HOMES. THE DEVELOPER ARGUES THAT THIS PROJECT ALIGNS WITH THE 2040
PLAN, BUT DENSITY MUST RESPECT THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS BELONG AT COMMERCIAL NODES SUCH AS 43rd AND SHERIDAN OR 50TH AND FRANCE. NOT CRAMMED BETWEEN BACKYARDS WHERE OUR CHILDREN PLAY. OUR FAMILY RECENTLY COMPLETED A
COSTLY LANDSCAPING RENOVATION WHILE FOLLOWING MINNEAPOLIS ZONING LAWS. THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT DRASTICALLY INFRINGES ON OUR USE AND ENJOYMENT OF OUR PROPERTY AND WILL LIKELY COST US THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO RENOVATE PORTIONS OF THAT. IT WILL ELIMINATE PRIVACY,
EXPOSING OUR FAMILY TO THE UNITS OF THIS BUILDING AND REDUCE OUR PROPERTY VALUE. THIS IS NOT ABOUT OPPOSING ALL DEVELOPMENT. IT IS ABOUT REJECTING A PROJECT THAT IS WILDLY OUT OF SCALE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THE DEVELOPER'S APPROACH
REFLECTS A COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMMUNITY MEETINGS PRIOR TO FILING APPLICATIONS, MINIMAL NOTICE TO NEIGHBORS WITH MANY RESIDENTS WITHIN 350 FEET, INCLUDING MYSELF, NEVER RECEIVING ANY
NOTIFICATION OR COMMUNICATION. NO MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS OR MODIFY PLANS BASED ON COMMUNITY FEEDBACK. MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE HAD TO FILE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS JUST TO OBTAIN FULL APPLICATION DETAILS.
SO THIS IS CLEARLY A DEVELOPER EXPLOITING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR PROFIT. >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE LAURIE BUSHBOMB FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL ALTMAN.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS LAURIE BUSHBOMB. I LIVE AT 4249LINDEN BOULEVARD ABOUT A BLOCK AND A HALF FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT. MY NEIGHBORS HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN ELOQUENTLY TO ALL OF MY CONCERNS.
I WILL SAY I AM DEFINITELY OPPOSED TO THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DUE TO ALL OF THE REASONS MY NEIGHBORS STATED. IT'S OUT OF SCALE. AND I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT GOAL THREE WHICH WAS THE AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE HOUSING WHEN IN FACT THERE'S NOTHING AFFORDABLE ABOUT THESE
13 UNITS. LINDEN HILLS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS QUICKLY BECOMING LESS AND LESS AFFORDABLE TO FAMILIES AND SENIORS EVERY YEAR. WE'VE LIVED THERE FOR 25 YEARS AND WE'RE NOT SURE THAT WE CAN STAY BECAUSE OF THE HOUSING, BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY TAXES.
SO I'M NOT INTERESTED IN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO MAKE THE DEVELOPER MORE MONEY. I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH COVERS EVERYTHING MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID IT. I TOO JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT I BELIEVE IT WAS JOSH SPOKE TO THE YEARS OF CAREFUL PLANNING OF THIS -- IF THAT WAS THE CASE, HOW COME I DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT IT AND MY NEIGHBORS DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT IT UNTIL LAST WEEK? THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMMUNICATION
OR ENGAGEMENT ON THIS PROJECT AND THAT IS DEEPLY DISTRESSING TO ME. I WOULD ASK YOU TO DENY THIS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE MICHAEL ALTMAN FOLLOWED BY STEVE HIGGINS WHITESIDE I THINK.
>> HI, MICHAEL ALTMAN. >> CAN YOU STEP UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? >> WRONG MIC. MICHAEL ALTMAN, 4249 LINDEN HILLS BOULEVARD. I WANT TO REMIND US THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GOING FROM TWO AND A HALF TO THREE STORIES WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS
WE'RE ALSO CHANGING THE ROOF LINE. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE SHADOW STUDIES AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CHECK WITH THE SHADOW STUDIES OF POSSIBLE THINGS THAT WERE WITHIN WHAT COULD BE BUILT WITHOUT COMING BEFORE YOU WERE DOING A
RECTANGULAR BOX WHICH OF COURSE ONE DO. ONE COULD MAKE A LITTLE LINE UP AT THE EDGE. BUT REALISTICALLY A HALF STORY IS ALMOST ALWAYS GOING TO BE PEAKED TOWARDS THE MIDDLE AND WILL PROVIDE MUCH LESS VISIBILITY AND CERTAINLY LESS HOUSING.
AND SO THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DENSITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUT NOT AS MUCH AS WHEN YOU GO UP TO THREE STORIES AND FILL OUT THAT THIRD FLOOR. AND SO I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE DENSITY, BUT I DON'T THINK
THIS ACCOMPLISHES IT. I THINK THIS PUTS A LOT OF CARS BY HAVING 13 UNITS WITH 26 CAR SLOTS. AND I JUST DO NOT THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE GOING FORWARD WITH THIS PERMIT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. STEVE HIGGINS FOLLOWED BY TOM DEVINKY. >> HELLO. WE, STEVE AND CATHERINE HIGGINS WHITESIDE LIVE ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING SITE. THANK YOU TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR YOUR TIME AND EXPERTISE AND TO OUR NEIGHBORS, MANY OF WHOM ARE HERE TONIGHT FOR BANDING TOGETHER TO ADVOCATE FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN JUSTIFIED AND THE ZONING CHANGES IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE 2040 PLANS TO INCREASE DENSITY.
THIS PLAN PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE VISION TO GUIDE THE CITY'S DECISION MAKING SO THAT THE FUTURE GROWTH OF OUR CITY BENEFITS EVERYONE. IT CONSISTS OF 100 POLICIES EACH WITH MULTIPLE ACTION ITEMS TO ACHIEVE 14 BROAD GOALS. I HAVE SUBMITTED IN WRITING A LIST OF POLICIES THAT THE
CURRENT LIST OF PROPOSALS VIOLATES. SPECIFIC TO OUR PROPERTY DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE BUILDING WE REQUEST THAT THE PLAN NOT BE APPROVED AS LONG AS IT DIMINISHES THE OUTPUT OF OUR SOLAR PANELS. THE 2040 PLAN INCLUDES ENCOURAGE THE USE AND GENERATION OF
RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THE CITY. ACHIEVE 80% REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLEAN ENVIRONMENT. ENCOURAGE SOLAR FRIENDLY DESIGNS AND PROVISIONS THAT PROTECT SOLAR ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.
THIS IS IMPERATIVE TO INCREASE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOSSIL FUELS IS REITERATED IN THE MINNEAPOLIS CLIMATE PLAN AS WELL AS THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. UNFORTUNATELY, WE AS A COMMUNITY ARE FALLING SHORT OF THE GOAL SET BY RESIDENTIAL SOLAR AND WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DETRACT FROM
THIS EFFORT. IF THIS PLAN IS APPROVED IT WILL DISCOURAGE FUTURE INVESTMENT SENDING A CLEAR MESSAGE, SOLAR PANELS CAN BE BLOCKED WITHOUT RECOURSE. WE ARE HERE TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT THE CITY'S GOALS TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN BY TRANSITIONING TO
RENEWABLE ENERGY ARE NOT GREEN WASHING BUT ENFORCEABLE COMMITMENTS. I'D MENTION THE 2040 PLAN CONCLUDES WITH THE POLICY NUMBER 100 TO ADVOCATE FOR COMMUNITY-BASED NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT. WELL WE ARE ENGAGING, WE ARE SPEAKING AND WE ARE CLEARLY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PLAN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. TOM DEVINKY FOLLOWED BY BRIAN HUGHES. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. PRESIDENT, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSION STAFF, SENIOR PLANNER SILAS.
MY NAME IS TOM DEVINK, I REPRESENT THE LINDEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMES TO US THIS EVENING WITH A FAIR AMOUNT OF IRONY, RIGHT? IT'S ON A TRANSIT CORRIDOR, CORRIDOR THREE. WE SEE RAPID BUS TRANSIT COMING
ONTO THIS CORRIDOR, BUT IT HAS 26 UNDERGROUND PARKING SPOTS. IT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY CLIMATE RESILIENCY PREMIUM TO ADD A STORY, BUT IT MATERIALLY OBSTRUCTS AN EXISTING SOLAR
ENERGY STRUCTURE. AND SO IT KIND OF SCREAMS OUT THIS NEEDS MORE TIME. AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE, WHAT ARE WE HEARING TONIGHT? IT DOESN'T FIT, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T FIT. AND WE HEAR THE NEIGHBORS SAYING THE MASSING, THE HUMAN SCALE, THE DRAINAGE, THE SAFETY, THESE
ARE EXACTLY THE THINGS THAT THE THREE TIERS OF PROTECTIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT WHICH IS A SPECIAL THING. REMEMBER, IF THIS WAS A ONE FAMILY OR TWO FAMILY HOUSE, WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT A VARIANCE
HERE, RIGHT? AND THIS WOULD BE REALLY NO BASIS FOR WHAT THIS APPLICANT IS SEEKING UNDER THE LAW. BUT BECAUSE OF THIS DISTINCTION IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT, WE'RE DEALING WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WE HAVE THESE SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS THAT NEED MORE TIME, MORE CONSIDERATION. AND IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WOULDN'T BE THE CASE HERE. THEY'RE TAKING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FROM 14,500 FEET TO 4,800 FEET ON A LOT THAT'S ONLY
19,000 FEET TOTAL. AND THE DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE NORTH NORTHBOUNDRY IS THE CONTRACTOR WILL FIGURE IT OUT WITH THE NEIGHBOR DURING THE BUILD. I WANT TO BE OPTIMISTIC. WE ALWAYS WANT TO BE OPTIMISTIC IN LIFE.
BUT DO WE REALLY THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN A WAY THAT IS THOUGHTFUL AND APPROPRIATE UNDER THE MANY PROTECTIONS UNDER THE CODE HERE? I THINK THIS CALLS OUT FOR THIS COMMISSION TONIGHT TO STAND BY THE CODE, SEND THIS BACK NOT TO FORMULA, BUT TO TABLE IT FOR
FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT I WOULD SAY HAVE BEEN SO WELL ARTICULATED TONIGHT BY SO MANY. I'VE OVERSTAYED MY TIME. BUT I THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. OUR FINAL SPEAKER WILL BE BRIAN HUGHES.
>> HI, MY NAME IS BRIAN HUGHES. I LIVE WITH MY FAMILY AT 2515 WEST 40TH STREET WHICH IS ON THE NORTH END OF THE BLOCK WHERE THIS BUILDING WAS. I DIDN'T INTEND TO BE THE LAST SPEAKER OR INTEND TO NECESSARILY SPEAK AT ALL. I WANTED TO REITERATE A LOT OF
THE CONCERNS MY NEIGHBORS HAVE EXPRESSED ALREADY. BUT I THOUGHT I MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADD A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL POINTS IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT IT'S ENTIRELY OUT OF SCALE AND CHARACTER WITH MY NEIGHBORHOOD, MY BLOCK.
WITH THE COMMENT ABOUT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, AS OF THIS AFTERNOON AND I'VE CHECKED MANY TIMES AS I'VE WALKED AROUND MY BLOCK, THE QR CODE THAT'S AT THE PROPERTY WHICH SHOULD BE THE ENTRY POINT FOR INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS PROJECT, AT NO
POINT HAS THAT QR CODE GOTTEN TO ANY POINT OF INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT THIS PLAN THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR QUITE SOME TIME APPARENTLY. I ALSO LIKE NEIGHBORS HAVE FOUND OUT VERY RECENTLY ABOUT THE PROJECT. AND THERE'S BEEN A BIG TURN OUT.
AND I'M SURE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO STILL DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT. AND I THINK IT'S PRETTY UNANIMOUS HOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEELS ABOUT IT. AND I REALIZE WE MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SOME
OF THE DISCUSSION POINTS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THAT, BUT I THINK THERE IS A GENERAL CONSENSUS AND I WOULD SAY UNANIMOUS OPINION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IT JUST DOESN'T FIT.
AND SPECIFICALLY TO ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO WHAT I HAVEN'T HEARD, 26 CARS IN A GARAGE WILL CREATE EXHAUST. ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS IS
DEFINITELY GOING TO AT LEAST ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS IS GOING TO DEFINITELY HAVE THAT EXHAUST IN THEIR YARD. THAT'S IT. THANKS. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC HEARING, I'M GOING TO ASK STAFF TO COME UP.
LINDSEY, IF YOU CAN COME UP. WE'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT EMERGE AND THEN IF ANYONE ELSE HAS ANYONE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THEY THOUGHT OF FOR THE APPLICANT OR ANYONE ELSE THEY CAN ASK THEM.
AT THIS STAGE, ASK YOU TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE NOW BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL PROCEED AFTERWARD. BUT LINDSEY, CAN YOU TELL US AGAIN WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT IN OUR PURVIEW TO HELP CLARIFY THINGS FOR ONE OF THE SPEAKERS WHO CAME UP.
LET ME TAKE A SHOT AT IT AND SEE IF I HAVE THINGS RIGHT. SO NORMALLY IF IT WASN'T FOR THE SHORELAND OVERLAY, THIS WOULD BE UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN IT AT ALL? >> CORRECT.
>> AND MANY ELEMENTS OF THAT ARE BY RIGHT THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE PURVIEW TO DENY. BUT SINCE THE SITE PLAN REVIEW IS BEFORE US, IF WE WANTED TO
DENY ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE TO SOMETHING OR MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO IT, WE COULD DO THAT? SO THERE'S SOME THINGS WE CAN CHANGE ABOUT THE SITE PLAN REVIEW, BUT THE THINGS THAT ARE BY RIGHT, WE COULD NOT CHANGE.
THEN THE MAIN ISSUE THAT WE'RE HERE FOR IS THE 2.5 TO 3 STORY PART FOR THE SHORELAND OVERLAY ORDINANCE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. SO THE CORRIDOR THREE SETS THE STAGE THAT THIS IS A PLACE THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR MODERATE
DENSITY, BUILDINGS OF 3 TO 4 STORIES. SO SITE PLAN REVIEW IS A PROCESS TO REVIEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS. SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT SITE PLAN REVIEW, WE'RE SAYING IS THERE ANYWHERE WHERE THEY'RE NOT MEETING THOSE STANDARDS AND
THAT'S THOSE PROVISIONS WHERE THEY'VE QUID ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. STAFF HAS ONLY RECOMMENDED GRANTING APPROVAL FOR ONE REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE WHICH IS THAT BUILDING PLACEMENT TO ALLOW IT TO BE SET BACK A LITTLE FURTHER FROM SHERIDAN THAN OUR STANDARDS REQUIRE.
AND THEN WE'VE RECOMMENDED COMPLYING WITH THE REST. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS ONE OF THOSE REVIEWS WHERE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT LESS DISCRETION BECAUSE IT'S A PROPOSAL THAT'S JUST, IT'S AN APPLICATION THAT'S REQUIRED FOR
ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION BUILDING TO CONFIRM THAT IT'S COMPLYING WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE ZONING CODE AND THEN EVALUATING IF THERE ARE ANY ALTERNATIVES REQUESTED. >> CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP REGARDING THE RETAINING WALL AND STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT?
IF THEIRETAINING WALL WERE TO BE DAMAGED, WHAT WOULD BE THE REMEDY FOR THEM? >> I THINK IT WOULD BE A PRIVATE PROPERTY SITUATION BETWEEN THE NEIGHBOR AND THE DEVELOPER. I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD WORK WITH THEM ON THAT AND POSSIBLY KIMBERLY
CAN WEIGH IN ON THAT AS WELL. STRUCTURALLY LOOKING AT SURROUNDING FEATURES, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ARE NOT ON THE SITE IS NOT COMMON AS PART OF A LAND USE APPLICATION.
>> FOR THE SHORELAND OVERLAY, THE OVERLAY DOESN'T STRICTLY PROHIBIT TALLER BUILDINGS, SOME OF OUR VERY TALLEST BUILDINGS WITHIN THE CITY ARE IN THE OVERLAY, LIKE DOWNTOWN OR THE NORTH SIDE OR LOTS OF OTHER
PLACES. MY INTERPRETATION IS THAT IT BASICALLY ADDS AN EXTRA LEVEL OF SCRUTINY TO IT. BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF PRECEDENCE FOR APPROVING A LOT OF BUILDINGS WITHIN THE OVERLAY THAT ARE MUCH TALLER THAN THIS.
BUT ONE THING THAT DOES SEEM PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER IS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. BUT THAT HASN'T COME UP AT ALL. I MEAN PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT IT
UP, BUT AS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE ANY PURVIEW OVER. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD ENABLE US TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE? >> SO THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE IN CORRIDOR THREE IS 75% MAXIMUM. AND THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED 74.4%. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY MECHANISM FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPLY A STRICTER REQUIREMENT BEYOND WHAT THE ZONING CODE ALREADY HAS FOR THE DISTRICT.
LIKE I NOTED, THE WATERSHED DISTRICT DID CONTACT ME TODAY AND I FORWARDED IT TO THE APPLICANT THAT THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE PLANS FOR MITIGATING STORMWATER RUNOFF ON THE SITE AND EROSION CONTROL ON THE SITE. SO THAT'S PART OF WHAT THEY'LL HAVE TO WORK OUT AS THEY'RE
MOVING THROUGH THE PDR AND BUILDING PERMIT STAGE WITH THE WATERSHED DISTRICT. >> OKAY. AND THEN A DIFFERENT TESTIFIER ASKED ABOUT SAFETY. TO WHAT EXTENT IS THAT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW?
IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN FACTOR IN? >> ARE YOU SPEAKING ABOUT THE SAFETY ABOUT CARS ENTERING AND EXITING, WAS THAT SPECIFICALLY THE ONE? THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET BURIED IN PDR COMMENTS. THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY
SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS IN PUBLIC WORKS AND THE FINAL PLANS WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS. ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE LIKE AN ALERT SOUND WHEN THE GARAGE DOOR IS OPENING DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE GARAGE DOOR, PROXIMITY TO
THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK. SO THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PEDESTRIAN ALERT WHEN THE GARAGE DOOR IS OPENING IN THE BUILDING. SO PUBLIC WORKS HAS REVIEWED THIS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THEIR STANDARDS LOOKING AT INTERFACE WITH THE PUBLIC STREET AND THE
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. I WILL NOTE SOME OF THE CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT 42nd AND SAFE CROSSING AND THAT SORT OF THING, I THINK THERE ARE ROUTES FORWARD THROUGH THE CITY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS. BUT THOSE WOULD BE THINGS THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED DIRECTLY WITH PUBLIC WORKS.
I KNOW THAT THERE ARE I WAS ACTUALLY TRYING TO FIND IT. THERE'S A FORMAT TO REQUEST INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, BOTH THROUGH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PROGRAMS THAT PUBLIC WORKS HAS. SO I CAN CERTAINLY IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN THOSE RESOURCES, FEEL FREE TO EMAIL ME AND I'LL
FIND THEM FOR YOU. >> YEAH, AND THAT WAS MY LAST QUESTION IS DID PUBLIC WORKS SAY ANYTHING ABOUT POTENTIALLY ADDING A CROSSWALK OR YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE TRAFFIC CALMING OPTIONS LIKE A I DON'T KNOW WHAT
WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AT THE SITE BUT A PEDESTRIAN ISLAND OR SOMETHING ELSE LIKE THAT TO MAKE CROSSING EASIER? >> THERE'S NOTHING FLAGGED IN THE PDR REPORT. SO PDR IS REVIEWED BY I THINK THREE DIFFERENT SECTIONS THAT THE DEAL WITH THE TRAFFIC SYSTEM AND NONE OF THEM HAD FLAGGED
ANYTHING LIKE THAT AROUND IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE COMING TO THE SITE. BUT CERTAINLY THOSE THINGS HAPPEN AND I THINK WITH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THEY CERTAINLY HAPPEN A LITTLE BIT QUICKER. IF THAT IS A REAL CONCERN ABOUT PEOPLE CROSSING ON 42nd AND HAVING SAFE PASSAGE BETWEEN THE
SIDES OF THE STREET, CERTAINLY WORTH EXPLORING. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> THANK YOU. SO I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE WORK WITH THE MINNIEHAHA
WATERSHED OR MINNIEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT. YOU MENTIONED THE EROSION CONTROL. CAN YOU DESCRIBE OR GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OR OTHER WORK THAT THEY MIGHT BE DOING WITH THE DEVELOPER FOR ENVIRONMENT PIECES OF THE PROJECT? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THE WATERSHED HAS THEIR HANDS IN IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE
ON A PROJECT. SHE DID FLAG THAT SHE REVIEWED THE STAFF REPORT IN THE ATTACHMENTS AND SAID THAT A LOT OF THE INFORMATION ALREADY PROVIDED IN THE PLANS IS COMPLYING WITH THEIR STANDARDS. SO I DO KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED SOME STORMWATER RETENTION ON SITE.
I'M NOT SURE ALL THE EXTENT OF WHAT THE WATERSHED WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IN THE FINAL PLANS. >> THANK YOU. AND I THINK THE OTHER THING I HAVE IS REALLY JUST A STATEMENT. AND COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE HEARD BEFORE WITH PROJECTS LIKE THIS, WE'VE SEEN IT BEFORE US IN
PREVIOUS MEETINGS WHERE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A PUBLIC WORKS PERSPECTIVE WHERE THERE'S INCREASED DENSITY ALONG STRETCHES OF ROAD WHERE THERE ARE NO CROSSWALKS OR WHERE THERE'S A LONG STRETCH BETWEEN STOP SIGNS AND RED LIGHTS AND WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS UP HERE BEFORE ABOUT WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK
LIKE TO HAVE A PERSPECTIVE OF STREET CALMING AS A PART OF DEVELOPMENT SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M ALSO INTERESTED IN AND HAVE BEEN SINCE WE'VE HAD THE KIND OF DISCUSSIONS HAPPEN WHERE
FOLKS DO HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS AROUND INCREASED DENSITY, BUT ALSO IN CONJUNCTION WITH JUST MOVING AROUND SAFELY. SO WHETHER IT'S NOTIFYING SPEAKING GARAGE DOORS, TO ME
IT'S MEDIANS AND LIT CROSSWALKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IT WOULD BE INTERESTING WHAT AVENUES FOLKS HAVE. I'M GLAD YOU'RE WILLING TO SHARE THOSE RESOURCES. WHAT AVENUES FOLKS HAVE TO BRING TRAFFIC CALMING AND CROSSWALKS AND OTHER SAFETY MECHANISMS TO THE STREET WHERE NEW
DEVELOPMENTS HAPPEN. THANK YOU. >> I SHARE THAT SENTIMENT. IT'S OFTEN FRUSTRATING WHEN WE HAVE CONCERNS COME TO US ABOUT TRAFFIC THAT ARE IN THE DOMAIN OF PUBLIC WORKS AND WE CAN'T REALLY ADDRESS THEM HERE.
I WILL SAY I DON'T LOVE THE IDEA OF THE GARAGE ALERTS. IT'S KIND OF A NUISANCE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE CLOSE THE HEARING? ALL RIGHT. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS. COMMENTS, MOTIONS? ALL RIGHT. I'LL LEAD US OFF IF NO ONE ELSE WILL. LIKE I SAID, I SYMPATHIZE WITH
THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS. I'M PLEASED TO HEAR PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PARKING. USUALLY WE GET COMPLAINTS IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION SAYING THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH. SO I APPRECIATE THE PEOPLE AND RECOGNIZE THAT THE MORE PARKING THERE IS, THE MORE TRAFFIC THERE IS GOING TO BE.
AND WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO REDUCE THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC. THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN GOALS OF THE 2040 PLAN. I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT DOES MEET THE GOALS OF THE 2040 PLAN BECAUSE IT'S ON A TRAFFIC CORRIDOR. THAT'S WHY IT'S ZONED AS
CORRIDOR THREE. ONE OF THE MAIN GOALS OF THE PLAN IS TO ALLOW MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE CLOSE TO AMENITIES LIKE THE E LINE OR LIKE LAKE HARRIET. AND MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING
THERE OR TO PROVIDE OTHER SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS LIKE CROSSWALKS OR OTHER TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES, THOSE AREN'T WITHIN OUR ABILITY TODAY. OUR ONLY THINGS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO CONSIDER ARE THE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AND THE SITE PLAN REVIEW. MOST OF THIS PROJECT IS AUTHORIZED BY RIGHT BECAUSE OF ITS ZONING AS CORRIDOR THREE. THE ONLY THING THAT ISN'T REALLY
IS THE 2.5 TO 3 STORY FOR THE SHORELAND COMPONENT. BUT LIKE I SAID, THE SHORELAND OVERLAY ADDS AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF SCRUTINY, IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT TALLER BUILDINGS.
WE HAVE A LOT OF MUCH TALLER BUILDINGS THAT WE HAVE APPROVED. AND I THINK THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO GRANT THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE
FOR CORRIDOR THREE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER FORNEY AND THEN BAXLEY. >> I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS. THE SHORELAND OVERLAY IS SOMETHING THAT'S VERY, VERY NEAR AND DEAR TO ME. IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF HEIGHT. IT IS A MATTER OF IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE. IT'S ABOUT BIRD MIGRATION. SO THOSE THINGS ARE VERY NEAR AND DEAR TO ME AND SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS BASED UPON ITS INTRUSION ON THE SHORELAND OVERLAY. THANK YOU. >> JUST TO CLARIFY ON THAT. THE ONLY PART OF THE SHORELAND
OVERLAY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE HEIGHT. THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS NOT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> THANKS, MR. CHAIR. I WONDER IF WE MIGHT CONSIDER
BREAKING THIS UP INTO TWO VOTES, ONE FOR THE SITE PLAN AND ONE FOR CONDITIONAL USE. >> KIMBERLY, WOULD THAT MAKE SENSE? >> IF THAT'S THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION, THAT WOULD BE FINE. PRESUMABLY IF THE CUP FOR HEIGHT WERE DENIED, THE APPLICANT WOULD
BE MAKING SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION. I GUESS I CAN'T SAY WHETHER OR NOT THOSE COULD BE REVIEWED ADMINISTRATIVELY. BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S NECESSARILY ANY HARM IN SEPARATING THEM OUT.
IT MAY CAUSE A BIT OF CONFUSION. >> LET ME EXPLAIN WHY POTEN POTENTIALLY AGAIN I THINK BY RIGHT THE APPLICANT CAN BUILD THIS BUILDING WITH THE FOOTPRINT SHOWN. THE ISSUE IS HEIGHT HERE.
AND I THINK WE DON'T GET A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES TO COMMENT OR HELP SHAPE THIS TRANSITION. WE GO FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. WE HAVE THESE STARK CONTRASTS IN VOLUME AND HEIGHT THAT ARE IMPOSED BECAUSE OF WHERE WE NEED
TO GET TO FOR DENSITY, RIGHT? AND I THINK THIS SITE IS PARTICULARLY INTERESTING BECAUSE OF THIS SLICE. IT DOES GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IS APPROPRIATE, HOW DO WE SHAPE THIS TRANSITION FROM CURRENT STATE TO FUTURE STATE.
AND I THINK WHILE FIVE FEET DOESN'T SOUND LIKE MUCH, IT ACTUALLY I THINK CAN HAVE A DRAMATIC IMPACT IN TERMS OF SHADOWING AND VOLUMETRIC SHAPING OF A PROJECT.
I THINK THE SITE PLAN BY RIGHT, WE SHOULD APPROVE IT. BUT I THINK THE VOLUME OF THIS BUILDING AND ITS IMPOSITION ON ITS NEIGHBORS IS SHAPED BY THE FACT THAT THIS SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT CUTS RIGHT THROUGH.
TO THE NORTH YOU CAN TAKE TWO PROPERTIES, COMBINE IT, AND BUILD THE BUILDING HEIGHT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT IN THIS CASE WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT'S APPROPRIATE, HOW DO WE MAKE THIS TRANSITION. SO I THINK FOR ME BREAKING IT UP INTO NOT APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND --
>> SO YOU WOULD SO YOU'RE PROPOSING TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? >> CORRECT. >> SO YOU WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT FINDING FOR THAT. >> I'M NOT CLEAR AS TO THE LEGAL
FINDING FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE. I'M NOT CONVINCED OF THE WORDING ON WHAT STAFF HAS BROUGHT FORWARD YET, SO I'D NEED TO HEAR THAT AGAIN. WHAT'S ITS GROUNDS? >> THIS WOULD BE ON PAGE THREE.
OR MAYBE 3 AND 4. >> SO THE STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CAN BE FOUND IN YOUR PACKET. I THINK LINDSEY ALSO KIND OF SUMMED THAT UP ON PAGE 12 OF HER PRESENTATION WHICH TALKS ABOUT
ESSENTIALLY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWS THE CITY TO REVIEW USES THAT BECAUSE OF THEIR UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT PERMITTED AS OF RIGHT BUT MAY BE ALLOWED UPON SHOWING THAT SUCH USE IN A SPECIFIED LOCATION WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS AND STANDARDS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE. THE THIRD BULLET POINT HERE IS SOMETHING OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS ITERATED THAT DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS MUST BE BASED ON REAL DOCUMENTED HARMS OF THE USE THAT CAN'T BE MITIGATED THROUGH THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS.
>> SO THE FULLY RESPECT STAFF'S OPINION ON THIS. BUT STAFF CAN STATE AN OPINION, BUT WE HAVE TO PROVE FACTUALLY THE OPPOSITE OF THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING?
SO I GUESS WE DON'T KNOW -- I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE THE PUSHING FORWARD OF THE CONDITIONAL USE HAS DEFINED EXACTLY THE REQUIREMENTS TO MEET FOR CONDITIONAL USE. >> SO IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WERE TO FOR EXAMPLE IF YOU WERE
TO PROPOSE OR MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE SET OF FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT IS A PROPOSED SET OF FINDINGS THAT STAFF PUTS TOGETHER -- >> UNDERSTOOD. >> THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD NEED TO MAKE AN ALTERNATE SET OF
FINDINGS AS PART OF THAT MOTION. >> OKAY. >> THIS IS WHY IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A VARIANCE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. FOR A VARIANCE, THE DEFAULT IS WE DON'T ALLOW IT AND IF WE
DON'T SEE A REASON TO APPROVE IT, WE CAN JUST DENY A VARIANCE. WE STILL HAVE TO MAKE THE FINDINGS, BUT IT'S A LOT EASIER TO DO. FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE DEFAULT ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO DO THIS.
WE HAVE TO ACTIVELY FIND A STRONG REASON WHY THEY CAN'T. SO LOOK THROUGH THE DIFFERENT FINDINGS THAT THE STAFF HAS PROPOSED AND SEE IF YOU WANT TO PROPOSE AN ALTERNATE ONE.
>> I'LL LET MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WEIGH IN A LITTLE BIT WHILE WE THINK OF WHAT THOSE MIGHT BE. >> COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE CASE FOR HARM HERE. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE BEEN PERSUADED ENOUGH THAT THERE'S HARM TO DENY THE C.U.P. THAT'S
WHERE I'M AT. WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE THE CASE THAT THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PROPOSED IS HARMFUL. AND I DON'T THINK I HAVE THAT. >> UNDERSTOOD. >> COMMISSIONER WAGNER, ARE YOU
TRYING TO SPEAK HERE? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. >> APPRECIATE ALL OF THE INPUT FROM EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, FROM STAFF, AND IT'S CLEAR THIS IS IMPORTANT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE. I LIVE IN SOUTHWEST MINNEAPOLIS
AND I RUN IN THE AREA AND I RUN AROUND LAKE HARRIET ALL THE TIME. SHERIDAN IS A FAIRLY UNIQUE STREET IN THAT IT FEELS LIKE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET. IT FEELS QUIET. BUT I LOOKED UP TRAFFIC COUNTS AND IF YOU LIVE ON THE STREET, THERE IS A STEADY STREAM OF
TRAFFIC ON THAT STREET. AND I THINK TO THE COMMENTS ABOUT TRAFFIC, WE AS A CITY NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW WE DESIGN THAT STRETCH OF SHERIDAN TO BOTH CONTINUE FUNCTIONING AS A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, WHILE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT IS A THOROUGHFARE FROM THAT SECTION
OF THE CITY TO UPTOWN AND TO -- AND THE VEHICLE COUNTS ON THAT STREET ARE HIGH. SO DO WE NEED TRAFFIC CALMING OR DO WE NEED CROSSWALKS OR DO WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES RELATIVE TO THAT AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT RESIDENTS SHOULD CONTINUE TO
TALK ABOUT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND WITH THEIR CITY COUNCILOR AND PERHAPS WITH THE DEVELOPER AS THIS PROJECT PROGRESSES. FOR ME, I KIND OF ECHO COMMISSIONER CONLEY'S COMMENTS AND COMMISSIONER MEYER'S COMMENTS.
I'M NOT SURE I SEE HARM HERE IN REGARDS TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM 2.5 TO 3 STORIES. I PULLED UP THE ZONING CODE AND I SEE IN THE HEADING OF THE CODE FOR THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT, THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ESTABLISHED TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES OF
SURFACE WATERS IN THE NATURAL AND ECONOMIC VALUES OF SHORELAND AREAS WITHIN THE CITY. AND THEN IT GOES ON AND ON. WE ARE ON THE VERY END OF THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT HERE AND GOING FROM 2.5 TO 3 STORIES IN THIS INSTANCE TO ME SEEMS FINE, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S CAUSING HARM.
IF THIS PROJECT WAS ACROSS THE STREET, IT COULD BE BUILT BY RIGHT. IF THIS PROJECT WAS TWO DOORS NORTH, IT COULD BE BUILT BY RIGHT. I'M INCLINED TO FOLLOW STAFF FINDINGS ON BOTH THE SITE PLAN AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THANK YOU. >> OTHER COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER GORDON. >> YEAH.
I'D LIKE TO EXPLORE THE OPTION OF TABLING THIS C.U.P. GIVEN THE IMMENSE AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY INPUT ALSO WAS PERCEIVED BY THE COMMUNITY AS A LACK OF ENGAGEMENT REGARDING WHAT THEY
WOULD FEEL IS HARM, TRAFFIC ISSUES, SAFETY. CONCERNS REGARDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WHETHER THAT'S NOT TRUSTING A PHOTOGRAPH, NOT TRUSTING SHADOW STUDIES, THE DEVELOPMENT OF DRAWINGS, I THINK THERE IS A
DRAWING INCLUDED BY A RESIDENT, THAT WAS AN ELEVATION, MR. RITTER, AN ELEVATION WITH GOOD CONTEXT IN THERE. IT WAS A STREET ELEVATION. WE GET A LOT OF FLAT ELEVATIONS, WE GET A LOT OF PERSPECTIVE. WE'RE NOT GETTING THE NECESSARY
AMOUNT OF DETAIL I FEEL IN THE SHADOW STUDY IN A WALL SECTION AND SOME OF THE DRAWINGS PROVIDED. SO I THINK THERE'S BEEN A STRONG REQUEST FOR THAT, SO I'D LIKE TO GET INFORMATION REGARDING TABLING THIS.
>> AS ALWAYS I WOULD DISCOURAGE THAT. I THINK THE APPLICANT'S DESERVE A YES OR NO VOTE. THE OTHER THING IS THAT WE ARE ON A TIMELINE. KIMBERLY, CAN YOU REVIEW THAT TIMELINE FOR US? HOW MANY DAYS IT WOULD BE BEFORE
THEY WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED? >> I AM JUST LOOKING AT THIS RIGHT NOW. I NEED TO PULL UP WHAT THE 60 DAY DEADLINE IS ON THIS ONE. IF YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU. SO WE ARE IN A BIT OF A UNIQUE
SITUATION HERE WHERE IF THIS WERE CONTINUED ONE CYCLE, IT WOULD GO TO THE NOVEMBER 17TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THE TEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD FOR THAT EXPIRES NOVEMBER 27TH. JUST THE WAY CALENDARS ARE
LOOKING, IT WOULD NOT GET IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL UNTIL JANUARY. AND MY COMPUTER IS LOADING VERY SLOWLY, BUT IF LINDSEY HAS THE END OF THE 120 HANDY, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>> THE END OF THE 60 DAY PERIOD IS DECEMBER 5TH. SO PROBABLY EARLY FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 3RD OR SO FOR THE IF WE EXTENDED IT AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS IN THE EVENT OF AN APPEAL. >> COUNCIL, WITH AN ELECTION YEAR DOESN'T HAVE A CALENDAR
ADOPTED FOR NEXT YEAR. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. WE COULD FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN AND MEET THE 60/120 UNDER STATE LAW.
BUT IT WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE IDEAL AT THIS POINT. >> YEAH, WITH IT RUNNING INTO THE HOLIDAYS -- FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ASKED IT FROM THE AUDIENCE, IT COULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT AUTOMATICALLY GETTING
ALL APPROVALS IF THAT HAPPENS. SO I DIDN'T HEAR A MOTION THERE. WAS THERE ANYMORE DISCUSSION? >> I JUST HAD A FEW POINTS OF CLARIFICATION. MAY WE ALSO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? WE CANNOT. >> WE CAN, BUT I'M TRYING TO GET US TO DO THAT BEFORE THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED. >> MY BAD. ACTUALLY, LINDSEY, JUST TWO POINTS OF CLARIFICATION. THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS MENTION A 60% REDUCTION IN ENERGY USE, BUT I'VE HEARD VERBALLY HEAR 50%, WHICH IS THE NUMBER? >> THANK YOU FOR FLAGGING THAT,
COMMISSIONER SHEPPARD. THE NUMBER IS THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE 50%. THERE WAS A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT THAT HAPPENED SOMEWHAT RECENTLY AND UNFORTUNATELY OUR TEMPLATE WASN'T UPDATED BUT THE NUMBER THEY AGREED TO ON THE APPLICATION IS 50%. >> AND I THINK IT WAS STATED
DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT -- EXPIRE IN A YEAR, BUT I'M NOT CLEAR THAT THAT IS TRUE? >> I GUESS IN TERMS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW WHICH PATH THEY'RE PROPOSING TO TAKE, BUT ONCE THEY
HAVE APPLIED FOR A PREMIUM, THEY NEED TO COMPLY WITH THAT PREMIUM FOR THE LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE. >> THANK YOU, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. THANKS. >> SO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IS WE CONSIDER FIRST A MOTION FOR THE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION, IF THAT FAILS, WE CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE FROM BAXLEY IF YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE FINDING TO PROPOSE. IF THAT FAILS, THEN WE'LL CONSIDER TABLING. >> I WOULD MOTION TO APPROVE AS
STAFF SUGGESTS THE COMBINED. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND FROM CONLEY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? ALL RIGHT, NOT SEEING ANY, SO CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> AYE. >> FORNEY.
>> NO. >> GORDON. >> NO. >> SHEPPARD. >> AYE. >> WAGNER. >> AYE. >> VICE PRESIDENT BAXLEY. >> NAY. >> AND PRESIDENT MEYER. >> AYE.
>> THERE ARE FOUR AYES AND THREE NAYS. >> SO THAT PASSES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU EVERYONE. WE'RE NOW GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR LAST AGENDA ITEM. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, THE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR SIGNAGE STANDARDS.
IF EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS NOT HERE TO DISCUSS OUR SIGN ZONING, IF YOU CAN PLEASE STEP OUTSIDE AND CARRY CONVERSATIONS OUT THERE. SARA, YOU MAY JUST GIVE 30 SECONDS FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE OUT. >> ABSOLUTELY.
>> I WANT TO NOTE FOR EVERYONE WE HAVE A TIME CERTAIN END POINT AT 7:30, THAT'S WHEN WE LOSE OUR CAPTIONING.
SO WE'VE GOT TO FINISH BY THEN.
>> I THINK WE'RE READY SARA. >> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT MEYER AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS SARA ROMAN. I'M INTRODUCING THIS EVENING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, A CODE AMENDMENT FOR OUR SIDE ORDINANCE. OVER A YEAR AGO, STAFF RECEIVED
A REQUEST BY OUR POLICYMAKERS TO REVIEW EXISTING SIGN REGULATIONS AND DETERMINE HOW THEY COULD BE AMENDED TO INCREASE VIBRANCY, ARTS AND CULTURE, AND SAFETY IN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS. TALL ORDER. WE RECOGNIZE THAT SIGNS ARE ONE PIECE OF A BROADER APPROACH THAT
IS GOING TO INCREASE VIBRANCY, MAKE MINNEAPOLIS DOWNTOWN A MORE INTERESTING AND LIVELY PLACE TO BE, INCREASE THE SENSE OF SAFETY. BUT WITHIN THE SIGN ORDINANCE WORK WE ARE INCLUDING ON PREMISES AND OFF PREMISES SIGNS, THOSE ARE SIGNS FOR LOCAL
BUSINESSES AS WELL AS BILLBOARDS. AND WE ALSO AS PART OF THIS AMENDMENT LOOKED AT HOW SIGN REGULATIONS CAN INCREASE VISIBILITY FOR DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES, PARTICULARLY OUR SKYWAY BUSINESSES AND WE LOOKED AT A FOCUS AREA ALONG PORTIONS OF 1st AND HENNEPIN AVENUE AS
PART OF THIS EFFORT AS WELL. SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE AMENDMENT AND IN YOUR STAFF REPORT ARE RELATED TO CITY-WIDE REGULATIONS OR FOR LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN. SO WE JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AT REGULATIONS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN,
WE ARE PRIMARILY MAKING CHANGES RELATED TO PROCESSES AND MAKING IT EASIER FOR BUSINESSES TO NAVIGATE THE CITY SIGN ORDINANCE AND THE PROCESSES INVOLVED IN THAT. SO I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THE
PURPOSE OF REGULATIONS GENERALLY SPEAKING ARE TO PREVENT TRAFFIC HAZARDS AND TO CONTROL AESTHETIC QUALITY. I INCLUDE THIS IMAGE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AESTHETIC QUALITY IS DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHO YOU ASK. AND SO PARTICULARLY WHEN WE ARE
LOOKING AT SIGNS, THERE IS NOT ALWAYS CONSENSUS ON WHAT IS THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. QUICK LEVEL SETTING ON PREMISES SIGN REGULATIONS ARE FOR WHERE
SIGNS CAN BE LOCATED, HOW MANY CAN BE LOCATED, AND THEY ARE RELATED TO SIGNS FOR BUSINESSES THAT ARE LOCATED ON A PROPERTY. OUR OFF PREMISES SIGN REGULATIONS ARE WHAT'S KNOWN AS OUR BILLBOARD ORDINANCE. SO THESE ARE SIGNS THAT ARE FOR
A BUSINESS OR AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR SOMETHING THAT IS OCCURRING NOT ON THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SIGN IS LOCATED. OUR CURRENT SYSTEM OF REGULATING BILLBOARDS HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE MID-1990s. AT THAT POINT, WE IMPLEMENTED A SIGN CREDIT SYSTEM FOR
BILLBOARDS AND THE GOAL OF THAT SIGN CREDIT SYSTEM WAS TO REMOVE BILLBOARDS FROM NON-CONFORMING LOCATIONS. THOSE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN. WHEN YOU REMOVED A BILLBOARD YOU WOULD GET A SIGN CREDIT. THAT SIGN CREDIT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO CONSTRUCT A BILLBOARD EITHER
ALONG OUR LIMITED ACCESS ROADWAYS, THOSE ARE OUR HIGHWAYS OR WITHIN PORTIONS OF DOWNTOWN. WE ALSO CURRENTLY HAVE A BILLBOARD ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT WHERE SIGN CREDITS ARE NOT REQUIRED. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, CREDITS ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE. AND SO YOU MAY HAVE HEARD THAT
THERE IS A MONOPOLY RELATED TO THE SIGN CREDIT SYSTEM WHERE ONE COMPANY HOLDS ALL OF THE SIGN CREDITS IN THE CITY. SO I WANT TO NOTE THAT A LOT OF RECENT PLANNING WORK HAS GONE
INTO DOWNTOWN GENERALLY WITHIN THESE PLANS. SO THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL REPORT. THE DOWNTOWN ACTION PLAN AND THE VIBRANT DOWNTOWN ACTION STORE FRONTS REPORT. THERE WERE RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND INCREASING THE NUMBER AND LOCATION OF SIGNS. SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT
BUSINESSES WERE ABLE TO ADVERTISE APPROPRIATELY DOWNTOWN AND GENERALLY TO LIVEN UP THE SENSE OF DOWNTOWN THROUGH SIGNAGE AS ONE MECHANISM. WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE HAS BEEN MANY, MANY HOURS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.
PART OF WHY WE ARE COMING TO YOU OVER A YEAR SINCE THIS REQUEST WAS MADE BY STAFF IS BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT OF ENGAGEMENT WORK AROUND SIGNS. SO TO MOVE INTO OUR PROPOSED CHANGES, THE FIRST CHANGES THAT
WE'LL TALK ABOUT ARE ON PREMISES SIGN REGULATIONS DOWNTOWN. SO OUR LOCAL BUSINESS SIGNS. REALLY HERE WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT ALLOWING MORE SIGNS IN MORE PLACES AND ALLOWING NEW TYPES OF SIGNS. SO WE ARE ALLOWING ON PREMISES SIGNS ON NONPRIMARY BUILDING
WALLS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ONLY ALLOWED ON PRIMARY BUILDING WALLS. SO THOSE ARE BUILDING WALLS THAT FACE A STREET. THIS WOULD ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY TO PROPERTIES, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT ARE HAVE INTERESTING PLATTING OR THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING IS NOT CONDUCIVE NECESSARILY TO
HAVING SIGNAGE ONLY ON A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL. THIS JUST GIVES EXTRA FLEXIBILITY FOR A BUSINESS TO CHOOSE WHERE THOSE SIGNS ARE LOCATED. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO INCREASE TOTAL SIGN AREA ALLOWED. SO THAT'S THROUGH A FEW DIFFERENT MECHANISMS. WE HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION FOR NONPRIMARY
BUILDING WALLS. WE HAVE AN EXTENSION OF THE MINIMUM SIGN AREA GUARANTEE. SO CURRENTLY IF YOU ARE A GROUND-FLOOR BUSINESS, YOU ARE GUARANTEED A MINIMUM SIGN AREA. EVEN IF YOUR SIGNS ON YOUR BUILDING ALREADY EXCEED THE MINIMUM, YOU COULD INSTALL A SIGN.
WE ARE EXTENDING THAT MINIMUM SIGN AREA TO SKYWAY BUSINESSES OR SECOND-STORY BUSINESSES. SO AGAIN IF YOU HAVE A SIGN ON A BUILDING THAT'S TAKING UP ALL OF YOUR ALLOCATION ALREADY, AND THERE IS A SKYWAY BUSINESS OR A SECOND-STORY BUSINESS THAT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SIGN, WE WOULD ALLOW AN ALLOCATION FOR THAT
SPECIFIC SIGN. WE ARE ALSO LOOKING TO EXEMPT DIRECTORY SIGNS. SO AN ADDITIONAL WAYFINDING TOOL, THEY MUST BE LOCATED NEAR BUILDING ENTRANCES, BUT THIS WOULD ALLOW BUILDINGS WITHOUT HAVING IT COUNTED TOWARDS THEIR
TOTAL SIGN AREA TO PUT UP AN EXTERIOR DIRECTORY SIGN TELLING PEOPLE ON THE STREET WHAT BUSINESSES ARE LOCATED IN THAT STRUCTURE. WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE BUILDING SIGN HEIGHT. SO THAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN IS MEASURED FROM THE SIDEWALK TO THE TOP OF THE SIGN, FROM 48
FEET TO 60 FEET. IT'S NOT A BIG CHANGE, BUT IT WOULD ENCOMPASS THE VAST MAJORITY OF VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT WE SEE. AGAIN JUST MAKING THESE PROCESSES EASIER FOR BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN. ANOTHER INTERESTING THING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO ALLOW A
SMALL SCALE COMBINATION OF ON PREMISES AND OFF PREMISES SIGNS. SO ANY SIGN IN THE CITY THAT'S AN ON PREMISES SIGN WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A MAXIMUM 20% OF THEIR SIGN AREA OR SIGN TIME FOR A DYNAMIC SIGN TO BE OFF
PREMISES SIGNAGE. THAT COULD BE AN AD FOR A NATIONAL RETAILER. BUT IDEALLY IN TALKING WITH SOME OF OUR DOWNTOWN STAKEHOLDERS, WE WOULD LOVE THAT THIS PROVISION WOULD BE USED FOR ADVERTISEMENTS FOR OTHER LOCAL BUSINESSES AS
WELL AS ADVERTISEMENTS FOR DISTRICTS THAT ARE CREATED, SO ESSENTIALLY BRANDING FOR DIFFERENT DISTRICTS WITHIN DOWNTOWN. THEY COULD ALSO BE USED FOR WAYFINDING. THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THIS FLEXIBILITY WOULD ALLOW. IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW SHARING OF
ADVERTISEMENT FOR EVENTS FOR EXAMPLE. WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO ALLOW A FEW NEW SIGN TYPES. INCREASING OUR ABILITY TO ADD NEW INTERESTING THINGS DOWNTOWN, LIGHT PROJECTIONS IN OUR
DOWNTOWN ENTERTAINMENT AREA. SO THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S ON YOUR LEFT IS OF A LIGHT PROJECTION THAT'S MAPPED ONTO THE STRUCTURE OF A BUILDING. THIS IS GREAT FOR OUR HISTORIC STRUCTURES SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO PERMANENTLY INSTALL ANYTHING ON THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE.
AND WE ARE PROPOSING THIS IN THE DOWNTOWN ENTERTAINMENT AREA FIRST. IF IT GOES WELL, WE WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK WITH A PHASE TWO AND PROPOSE IT FOR MORE AREAS OF DOWNTOWN. WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO ALLOW PORTABLE SIGNS MORE COMMONLY
KNOWN AS SANDWICH BOARD OR A-FRAME SIGNS. THEY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED IN THE WALKING PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK IN THE PEDESTRIAN AREA. WE HAVE A DIAGRAM IN OUR CODE THAT'S RELATED TO THAT. BUT THEY'RE VERY POPULAR WITH DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES AND THEY'RE KR CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED.
SO WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT FIX TO ALLOW THEM. BUILDING TYPE SIGNS ARE ANOTHER THING WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE ALLOWING. FIRST WE WOULD LIKE TO START WITH SKYWAY BRIDGES AND IDEALLY IF THAT GOES WELL, IN CONVERSATION WITH OUR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION STAFF, WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS HOW BUILDING WRAP SIGNS COULD BE USED ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY. THESE WOULD DIFFER FROM FOR EXAMPLE A PAINTED WALL SIGN AND THAT IS TYPICALLY A FILM THAT'S APPLIED TO THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE.
SO THERE'S SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW THAT WORKS WITH THE MATERIAL OF A BUILDING. BUT THEY ALSO TYPICALLY COVER WINDOWS AND OTHER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. SO CERTAINLY WE WANT TO HAVE A ROBUST CONVERSATION AROUND WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN FOR VISIBILITY IN AND OUT OF STRUCTURES AND HOW
THAT WOULD EFFECT THE STREET SCAPE IN GENERAL. WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO ALLOW DYNAMIC SIGNS WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. CURRENTLY ANY DYNAMIC SIGN IN DOWNTOWN WOULD NEED TO COME IN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THE ADDITIONAL PROCESS STEP TYPICALLY MIMICS THE SAME REGULATIONS THAT WE REQUIRE IN THE ZONING CODE. WE'RE NOT GENERALLY SEEING ANY ADDITIONAL STANDARDS PLACED ON THOSE SIGNS, IT IS JUST AN
ADDITIONAL PROCESS STEP THAT IS TAKING ADDITIONAL TIME AND EFFORT OF STAFF AND NOT RESULTING ANY CHANGES BEING REQUIRED OF THESE BUSINESSES. WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING CHANGES FOR SKY SKYWAY BRIDGES.
THIS IS JUST THE PORTION OF THE SKYWAY BRIDGE THAT IS CROSSING THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT IS THE ONLY PORTION THAT THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS HAS ANY CONTROL OVER. THEY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A REALLY NEAT OPPORTUNITY WITHIN DOWNTOWN TO HAVE MORE PUBLIC ART AND TEMPORARY SIGNAGE.
SO WE DO ALREADY HAVE EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC ART IN MINNEAPOLIS BUT THE EXAMPLE ON YOUR SCREEN IS OF ST. PAUL. WITH SOME REGULATIONS AROUND TRANSPARENCY, WE WOULD BE ALLOWING TEMPORARY ON PREMISES SIGNS FOR NO LONGER THAN 90 DAYS.
TEMPORARY ART, PERMANENT ART, AND THEN ALSO CARVING OUT A NEW ALLOWANCE FOR EVENTS THAT DON'T BLOCK PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT. SO YOU MAY HAVE HEARD PROPOSALS FOR MINI GOLF THROUGH THE
SKYWAY. THOSE ARE TECHNICALLY NOT ALLOWED, BUT THROUGH THIS PROVISION WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH AN EVENT PERMIT. THE CHANGES RELATED TO ON PREMISES SIGN REGULATIONS CITY WIDE ARE IN GENERAL PROCESS SIMPLIFICATIONS, SO A
SIMPLIFICATION OF SIGN PERMIT FEES, IT'S CURRENTLY 14 DAYS AFTER AN EVENT THAT REQUIRES TRACKING OF WHEN AN EVENT ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE. SO WE'RE JUST SIMPLIFYING THAT TO BE A 60 DAY MAXIMUM. THIS IS GREAT FOR OUR SMALL BUSINESSES AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A
SIGN THAT ALREADY COMPLIES WITH CODE AND YOU ARE JUST CHANGING THAT SIGN OUT. YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THE ILLUMINATION OR THE SIZE. YOU CAN GO THROUGH AND MAKE THAT CHANGE WITHOUT COMING TO STAFF. I AND ALSO ALLOWING CONDITIONAL WALL SIGNS THROUGH A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT. THAT PROCESS PRIOR REQUIRED A MINIMUM HEIGHT. AND NOW THIS WOULD JUST ALLOW ANY PROPERTY THAT BELIEVED THAT THEY HAD SOME ISSUE WITH COMPLYING WITH CODE TO COME FORWARD FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE ONE PROVISION THAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT HERE IS AN EXEMPTION
FOR PAINTED WALL SIGNS FROM REGULATION. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE ON YOUR SCREEN, THIS RECORD STORE, THAT MURAL, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER THAT A MURAL. BUT THAT ADVERTISEMENT WOULD NOT CURRENTLY BE ALLOWED UNDER OUR ORDINANCE.
SO ANY DEPICTION OF WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE THAT BUSINESS IS CONSIDERED PART OF THE SIGN UNDER OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR PAINTED WALL SIGNS. THEY HAVE A REALLY RICH HISTORY
AND STORIED HISTORY IN THE CITY. WE SEE BEAUTIFUL EXAMPLES OF PAINTED WALL SIGNS THROUGHOUT OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY AND BUSINESS DISTRICTS. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT. WE'RE HOPING TO SEE SOME
INTERESTING CHANGES THERE AND JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT FOR YOU ALL TONIGHT. WE ALSO HAVE SOME PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS RELATED TO ON PREMISES SIGNS. IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS OR FOR SPECIFIC USES, AGAIN PRIMARILY
RELATED TO PROCESS OR TO AMENDMENT FIXES. I DON'T HAVE A SLIDE FOR THEM IN THE DECK JUST FOR THE INTEREST OF TIME, BECAUSE I KNOW WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT. BUT IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE PROVISIONS, I WOULD
BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS WITH YOU ALL. AND THEN OUR CHANGES RELATED TO OFF PREMISES SIGN REGULATIONS. SO UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, STAFF IS PROPOSING TO RETIRE THE SIGN CREDIT SYSTEM FOR OFF PREMISES SIGNS.
THAT WOULD RESULT IN A PAUSE ON THE INSTALLATION OR CONVERSION OF BILLBOARDS. SO THERE WOULD BE FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, NO NEW BILLBOARDS AND NO CONVERSION OF BILLBOARDS FROM STATIC TO DIGITAL. WE ALSO INCLUDED A PROVISION THAT REQUIRES THAT ANY NEW BILLBOARD THAT IS INSTALLED, SO
ONCE THE PAUSE IS COMPLETE, ANY NEW BILLBOARD THAT IS INSTALLED WOULD HAVE TO BE LOCATED ON A LOT WITH AN ACTIVE USE. SO THAT IS TO DETER SUB PSI --
SUBSIDIZATION OF STRUCTURES. WE ALSO ENCOURAGED SIGNS FOR DOWNTOWN SPORTS EVENTS IN TOWN. SOME OF OUR MOST LOVED MURALS OF OUR SPORTS TEAMS ARE NOT CURRENTLY IN CODE. SO THIS WOULD ALLOW THOSE TYPES OF SIGNS RELATED TO FESTIVALS
AND THE SUCCESS OF OUR SPORTS TEAMS TO OCCUR IN DOWNTOWN FOR 90 DAYS MAXIMUM. A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF SIGN THAT THAT WOULD ALLOW IS THE PHOTO OF DETROIT WITH THAT DETROIT LIONS WE'LL CALL IT AN
ADVERTISEMENT OR A MURAL. WE ARE ALSO INCLUDING IN THE CHANGES TO OFF PREMISES SIGN REGULATIONS AN EXEMPTION FOR OFF PREMISES SIGNS FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES.
SO HOW WILL THIS PAUSE AFFECT PROPERTY OWNERS? PROPERTY OWNERS WITH EXISTING PERMITTED BILLBOARDS WOULD STILL RETAIN ALL OF THEIR EXISTING RIGHTS. THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN, OPERATE THEIR SIGNS, CHANGE THE SIGNAGE THAT'S LOCATED ON THOSE BILLBOARDS.
THEY WOULD JUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THAT BILLBOARD OR TO CONVERT IT FROM STATIC TO DIGITAL. THE PAUSE WOULD ALSO TEMPORARILY RESTRICT NEW BILLBOARD CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN AND SO WE JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT
THIS IS A CITY-WIDE CHANGE TO OUR BILLBOARD POLICY. PROPERTY OWNERS COULD STILL ALSO RENEGOTIATE OR REBID THEIR BILLBOARD LEASES DURING THIS PAUSE. THIS PAUSE IS EXPECTED TO BE
TIME LIMITED. AND SO I DO WANT TO JUST TAKE SOME TIME TO REVIEW WHY STAFF IS MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PAUSE WHILE WE MOVE INTO A SECOND PHASE OF SIGN CODE REGULATIONS
CHANGES THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE WITHIN APPROXIMATELY A YEAR. SO THE CITY IS TAKING A FEW STEPS DURING THIS INTERIM PAUSE. FIRSTLY, THE ARTS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT IS CONDUCTING A CULTURE SCAPE VISIONING PROCESS. THEY ARE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT
AREAS WITHIN DOWNTOWN AND REIMAGINING WHAT THOSE AREAS COULD BE. SO THIS IS REALLY GROUND BREAKING, INVENTIVE WORK THAT IS OCCURRING. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE ARTS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS STAFF THE SPACE TO COMPLETE THAT PROCESS AND TO CREATE AN INTENTIONAL VISION FOR OUR
DOWNTOWN. ONCE THEY HAVE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND BILLBOARDS FOR DOWNTOWN, WE ULD TAKE THOSE INTO ACCOUNT IN OUR SECOND PHASE OF WORK. WE ARE ALSO INTENDING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A LEGISLATIVE ASK THAT WOULD ENABLE THE CITY TO HAVE A REVENUE-GENERATING
BILLBOARD PROGRAM. SO THIS IS VERY COMMON IN CITIES LIKE DENVER, MIAMI, ATLANTA, SAN ANTONIO. THEY EITHER REQUIRE REVENUE SHARING OR THROUGH A PERMIT FEE ARE CREATING A TANGIBLE PUBLIC BENEFIT. SO THEY ARE TAKING THAT REVENUE
THAT IS CREATED FROM BILLBOARDS AND THEY ARE REINVESTING THAT MONEY INTO THEIR DOWNTOWNS AND THEIR ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS TO FUND THINGS LIKE PUBLIC ART AND FESTIVALS. THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS IS VERY INTERESTED IN MOVING FORWARD WITH A PROGRAM LIKE THAT. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THE
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO PURSUE THAT OPTION AT THIS POINT. AND SO DURING THIS PAUSE, WE WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD AT THE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE THAT ASK AS PART OF A PACKAGE OF REQUESTS RELATED TO DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT. WE ARE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT A
LOT OF THE INPUT THAT WAS RECEIVED AROUND BILLBOARDS WAS FROM STAKEHOLDERS THAT WERE RELATED TO MEDIA COMPANIES OR PROPERTIES THAT ALREADY HAVE BILLBOARDS. AND THERE IS NOT CLEAR CONSENSUS AROUND BILLBOARDS AND WHAT A PROGRAM SHOULD LOOK LIKE.
AND SO THIS PAUSE WOULD ALSO ALLOW CPED TO TAKE THE TIME TO SPEAK WITH DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CORRECT BALANCE OF BILLBOARDS MOVING FORWARD COULD LOOK LIKE.
SO THAT DOES CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION. CERTAINLY I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS BRIEF ENOUGH THAT WE HAD TIME FOR EVERYONE TO SPEAK WHO'S HERE TO SPEAK ON THE PROPOSAL. I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT TIMING IS FAIRLY IMPORTANT FOR THIS AMENDMENT. WE DO WANT TO GET THROUGH THE
ADOPTION PROCESS BY THE END OF THE YEAR TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE AN OFFER IN PLACE. SO STAFF IS ASKING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THESE ORDINANCE CHANGES TONIGHT AND MOVE THIS FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN ADOPTION
PRIOR TO THE END OF THE YEAR. I'LL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, SARA. I DO WANT TO NOTE, OUR CAPTIONER CAN STAY UNTIL 8:00 P.M. SO WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXTENSION. >> WONDERFUL. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING? THANK YOU, SARA. >> THANK YOU. >> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I HAVE SIX PEOPLE WHO HAVE REGISTERED. IF YOU WANTED TO TESTIFY AND YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THEM, YOU CAN GO TO THE CLERK AND SIGN UP.
FIRST I HAVE TOM McCARVER THEN ROGER WORM. TOM, IF YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF. AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. TOM McCARVER. I REPRESENT 700 HENNEPIN,
HENNEPIN REAL ESTATE PARTNERS AND I'M ALSO WITH BLUE OX MEDIA GROUP. WE OWN 700 HENNEPIN AND ARE GOING THROUGH REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY AND LOOKING AT NEW USES. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND STAFF FOR A BIG CHUNK OF WORK HERE. THE SIGN CODE IS A LOT IN ANY
CITY. SO THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF GREAT WORK. WE JUST GOT THIS A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO SO WE'RE TRYING TO DIGEST IT AND WE'RE COIKIND OF THE FLY RIGHT NOW TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT. THERE ARE TWO BASIC ASKS THAT I WOULD HAVE. ONE IS TO, I GET THERE IS SOME
NEED TO CONTINUE THIS ON A RELATIVELY QUICK SCALE. IF WE COULD PAUSE THIS FOR ONE CYCLE SO WE COULD ACTUALLY TAKE SOME TIME WITH IT AND SAY OKAY, PUT IT MORE THOUGHTFUL, LOOK INTO THIS AND HAVE SOME MORE COMMENTS REGARDING THAT.
THE SECOND IS THERE IS A PROVISION IN HERE THAT WAS JUST DISCUSSED ABOUT A PAUSE. I GET WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO GO WITH THAT. THAT'S A DE FACTO MORATORIUM WITH NO END. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT TO NOT
OCCUR, TO LET THE ORDINANCE WORK AS IT'S INTENDED. THERE IS NO REASON THAT WE CAN'T CONTINUE HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS FOR ALL OF THE VIBRANT PIECES THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. I WANT TO BE PART OF ALL OF THAT. I THINK ALL OF THE SIGN COMPANIES DO.
SO THAT WOULD BE OUR TWO BASIC ASKS IS CAN WE MOVE THIS FOR ONE MORE CYCLE OR TABLE IT AND TALK ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BECAUSE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT CURRENTLY HAVE, WE'RE IN THE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, THERE'S A FEW OTHERS LIKE THAT, HAVING THAT FLEXIBILITY IS A BIG PART
OF BUILDING OWNERSHIP IN THAT AREA. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ROGER WORM AND THEN NEXT WILL BE KEITH PARKER. >> MY NAME IS ROGER WORM, I'M ON THE BOARD OF THE SOUTHWEST BUSINESS ASSOCIATION. WE COVER 520 STORE FRONTS SOUTH
OF LAKE STREET EXCLUDING 50TH AND FRANCE. 90% OF OUR BUSINESSES ARE VERY SMALL BUSINESSES IN THAT AREA. I THINK WE REPRESENT WHAT I WOULD CALL THOSE AREAS OF MINNEAPOLIS THAT HAVE A MULTITUDE OF SMALL BUSINESSES. ONE OF THE REASONS, I THINK I FEEL LIKE I'M THE TAIL WAGGING
THE DOG HERE WITH ALL OF THE BIG THINGS THAT SARA HAS INTRODUCED. I JUST WANT TO REINFORCE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR EXEMPTIONS IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE OTHER EXEMPTIONS IN THE CODE IS THAT IF I HAVE ROGER'S BIKE SHOP AND IT'S ALREADY PERMITTED, I TAKE
IT DOWN AND MAKE IT BILL'S BIKE SHOP, IT'S THE SAFETY FACTORS FROM HAVING A LICENSED ERECTOR DO IT AND ALL OF THAT, IT'S SORT OF LIKE IT MAKES THE SAME LOGICAL SENSE TO EXEMPT THAT. IN OUR AREA WE HAVE BEEN
FORTUNATE ENOUGH, EXCUSE ME, TRYING TO MAKE THIS QUICK. FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO RECEIVE 15 FACADE GRANTS FROM THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. AND WE'VE AWARDED OR ADMINISTERED OVER 400 AWARDS, 80 OF WHICH WERE SIGNS. SO WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE
SIGN CODE AND WORKING WITH BUSINESS ON THE SIGN CODES. IN OUR AREA MOST SIGNS COST BELOW $2,000. SO BETWEEN THE $200 FOR THE SIGN AND THE $200 TO PROCESS, IT ADDS A SIGNIFICANT COST TO THE SMALL BUSINESSES.
AND OUT OF THAT, HALF OF THOSE WERE NEW ONES. ANY QUESTIONS? I THINK THIS WAS HANDED TO YOU, HOPEFULLY IT'S IN YOUR POSSESSION. >> I CAN'T SEE FROM HERE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S ONE WE HAVE. YES. >> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. KEITH PARKER. AND THEN DANA FRANK WOULD BE NEXT. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS KEITH PARKER. I'M THE HEAD OF OPERATIONS FOR THE WALKER ARTS CENTER. WE ARE IN THE CONCEPT PHASE AND HOPING TO PUT SOME DIGITAL SIGNAGE ON OUR PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, THE INTENTION OF THAT WOULD BE OF COURSE TO ADVERTISE THE WALKER ARTS CENTER'S
PROGRAMMING. BUT WE HAVE MANY CORPORATE SPONSORS AND SUPPORTERS. WE WORK VERY COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE ARTS COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. SO WE WOULD ENVISION THAT THIS SIGNAGE WOULD ALSO DO SOME ADVERTISING AND PROMOTING OF SOME OF THOSE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE NORTH --
WHO WE PARTNER WITH. I THINK IN YOUR PACKET, YOU SEE THAT WE STARTED TO PROACTIVELY DO SOME INITIAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AS WE'RE IN THIS CONCEPT PHASE. WE RECOGNIZE IT AS JUST A CONCEPT. BUT IN THE SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY, WE'VE REALLY MADE AN EFFORT TO START COMMUNICATING
WITH OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO TALK ABOUT OUR INTENTION AND SO YOU PROBABLY HAVE SOME LETTERS OF SUPPORT THERE FROM THE BASILICA AND DUNWIDDIE. WE'VE ALSO BEEN TALKING TO THE LOWERING PARK NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION AND FRIENDS OF LOWERING PARK. BECAUSE OF THAT, YOU SEE SOME COMMENTS FROM 510 GROVEN WHICH IS ONE OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE DIRECTLY ON THE EAST SIDE OF HENNEPIN AVENUE. SO OUR GOAL IS JUST TO HOPEFULLY MOVE FORWARD. WE WANT TO REALLY THANK
COUNCILMEMBER CASHMAN AND HER STAFF FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE TO HELP US KIND OF SHEPARD THROUGH THIS CONCEPT AND UNDERSTAND THE CITY ORDINANCE AND THE STEPS WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE. SO JUST WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND GIVE YOU SOME SENSE OF WHAT OUR
INTENTION WOULD BE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> WE HAVE DANA FRANK AND THEN KELSEY SHARP. >> HI. MY NAME IS DANA FRANK. I'M THE OPERATOR 1st AVENUE AT THE CORNER OF 7th AND 1st AVENUE
WITH THE GIANT BILLBOARDS ON THE ROOF. I ALSO OWN THE PROPERTY AT THE FINE LINE BUILDING AND 1st AVENUE BETWEEN 3rd AND 4th STREET. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS AMAZING OVERHAUL THAT I KNOW I WAS ONE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGED AND THE AMOUNT OF INTERVIEWS AND PROCESS THAT WENT INTO THIS IS REALLY,
REALLY IMPRESSIVE. I WANT TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO 360, 320 WHICH I HEARD AS A PAUSE BUT IT'S REALLY A MORATORIUM. IT STATES ANYONE WITH EXISTING BILLBOARDS CANNOT CONVERT FROM
STATIC TO DIGITAL OR CAN'T ALTER. AND UNDERSTANDING THAT INTENDED AS A PAUSE IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM HOW IT'S WRITTEN AND RELYING ON A FUTURE COUNCIL, A FUTURE MAYOR AND A FUTURE LEGISLATURE TO PASS SOMETHING IN ORDER TO CHANGE THIS IS A GENUINELY TERRIFYING SITUATION
FOR ANYONE WITH EXISTING BILLBOARDS TO BE IN. AND HONESTLY, I FIND IT COMPLETELY UNTENABLE. AS WE GO THROUGH A 1st AVENUE REDESIGN PROCESS, AS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE TARGET CENTER, THE WHOLE ENTIRE DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPE COULD CHANGE AROUND US, AND WE MIGHT HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH EXISTING
SIGNS. AND SO, UNDERSTANDING THE INTENTION IS MAYBE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I READ. AND AGAIN, WE ONLY SAW THIS ON FRIDAY SO IT'S BEEN A VERY BUSY WEEKEND TRYING TO DIGEST THIS AND UNDERSTAND THIS FOR WHAT SOME OF US HONESTLY KEEPS US IN
BUSINESS IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO OPERATIONS. I WOULD REQUEST AN AMENDMENT STRIKING THE MORATORIUM TO ALLOW US TO ADJUST OUR BUSINESS BASED ON ECONOMIC AND MARKET CONDITIONS JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER BUSINESS CAN DO AND NOT HAND STRING US AND CAUSE US TO FALL
BEHIND AS THE REST OF THE WORLD IS CHANGING AROUND US. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. KELSEY SHARP AND THEN TOBY BROOM.
>> MY NAME IS KELSEY SHARP. I LIVE IN NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. I RUN A SIGN SHOP IN SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. AND WE ALSO HAVE AN OFFICE IN DOWNTOWN. I'M EXCITED ABOUT THESE PROPOSED UPDATES. I FEEL LIKE THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS IT FEELS LIKE RED
LINING THESE VERY IMPORTANT CHANGES OR RED LINING OR GERRYMANDERING THESE IMPORTANT CHANGES INTO ONE DISTRICT THAT THE CURRENT POLICYMAKERS WANT TO INVEST IN WHEN THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER CULTURAL CORRIDORS THAT I FEEL LIKE ALSO WOULD GREATLY BENEFIT FROM THESE CHANGES TO THE SIGN ORDINANCES.
AND THEN SO BESIDES DOWNTOWN, SO THE FACT THAT WALKER ARTS CENTER WOULDN'T EVEN BE IN THE PROPOSED ZONE FOR THESE CHANGES IS CRAZY BECAUSE WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THAT'S A CULTURAL ZONE. A LOT OF THE NEW VIBRANT STORE FRONTS THAT THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS HAS DESIGNATED
WOULDN'T EVEN BE BENEFITTING FROM THESE CHANGES TO THE SIGN ORDINANCES. I'M FOR ALL OF THESE CHANGES, I WOULD JUST LOVE TO SEE A LIST OF THE OTHER CULTURAL CORRIDORS THAT THEY WOULD EXPAND IT TO AND A TIMELINE FOR WHEN THAT WOULD HAPPEN BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THOSE ARE THE BUSINESSES THAT I SERVE.
I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BILLBOARDS AND A LOT OF THE WORK THAT I DO IS TRADITIONAL SIGN WORK. SO I'D BE CURIOUS WHERE THE CITY WOULD LAND ON HAND PAINTED ADVERTISEMENTS LIKE IN NEW YORK AND L.A., YOU SEE A LOT OF
HAND-PAINTED SIGNS ON THE SIDES OF BUILDINGS. SO THE ADS FOR iPHONE OR WHATEVER, MAKEUP BRAND, YOU SEE THOSE TYPE OF HAND-PAINTED ADVERTISEMENTS. SO I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT KIND OF BILLBOARD BE CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED AS WELL.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. TOBY BRILL AND THEN RAND LEVY.
>> HELLO, I'M RANDY LEVY. I'M A MINNEAPOLIS RESIDENT. TOBY BRILL WILL BE SPEAKING NEXT. WE'VE MET WITH A NUMBER OF COUNCIL PEOPLE. THERE MAYBE AN IMPORTANCE, OUR DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN ABOUT OFF
PREMISE SIGNS. AND DONE PROPERLY AS HAS BEEN DONE IN DENVER AND ATLANTA AND SAN ANTONIO AND THESE VARIOUS TOWNS, YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT CAN COME BACK TO THE CITY. AND I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN THAT COME UP IN THE COMMENTS OR IN
THEIR PRESENTATION. IN DENVER, IT'S $1.2 MILLION PER YEAR THAT COMES BACK TO THE CITY BY THE PRIVATELY RUN -- PRIVATE/PUBLIC ENTITY THAT CONTROLS THE BILLBOARD SIGN
DISTRICT. SO IT'S A DEEPER DISCUSSION, BUT I THINK I WANTED TO MAKE SURE Y'ALL UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS SOME SUBSTANTIAL CASH INVOLVED. AND FOR BETTER OR WORSE WHOEVER WANTS TO SWITCH FROM A STATIC
SIGN TO A DIGITAL SIGN, IDEALLY YOU WOULD CREATE A SIMILAR ENTITY AS THESE OTHER TOWNS HAVE DONE AND MAKE IT A SUBSTANTIAL GENERATOR OF FUNDS. >> THANK YOU.
TOBY BRILL. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS TOBY BRILL. MY COLLEAGUE RANDY LEVY WHOM I WORK WITH IS A RESIDENT OF WARD 7.
I'M A RESIDENT OF WARD 3. AND ONE OF OUR OTHER TEAM MEMBERS IS A RESIDENT OF WARD 11. WE HAVE A SMALL COMPANY WHO WORKS WITH ACQUISITIONS, DISPOSITIONS, VALUATION, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT OF OFF PREMISE SIGNS. I HAPPEN TO BE A CERTIFIED
PROJECT MANAGER. SO WE ACTUALLY CAN DO THE INSTALLATION FROM GROUND FLOOR UP. NOW I'M SURE WITHOUT TURNING AROUND AND ASKING FOR HANDS THAT EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM WANTS
MINNEAPOLIS TO BE A MUCH MORE CAU CAU COSMOPOLITAN CITY THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW. AND YES THROUGH SIGNS OUR CITY CAN TRANSFORM. AND IT'S ABOUT TIME IT DOES. IN THIS PARTICULAR TITLE 20
ORDINANCE CHANGE WHICH I UNDERSTAND TO BE PHASE ONE, AND AGAIN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONLY OFF PREMISE SIGNS, FOR OUR PURPOSES THERE'S KIND OF A MIX IN THE MATERIALS. SPEAKING ABOUT ON PREMISE SIGNS
AND THEN SWITCHING TO OFF PREMISE SIGNS AND THEN UNDERSTANDING THIS IS PHASE ONE AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A PHASE TWO. WE NEED A LITTLE BIT CLEARER DELINEATION ON WHAT THE TIMELINE IS.
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE RECEIVED OUR REDLINE OF THIS ORDINANCE. IT'S DATED NOVEMBER 3RD. AND I LIKE THE OTHERS KNEW ABOUT THIS ON FRIDAY. SO THERE ARE TEN POINTS THAT
APPEAR ON PAGE 1 AND 2 OF THE REDLINE. WE ASK THAT THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE CHANGE WHICH -- SO MANY DIFFERENT OVERLAY DISTRICTS BE -- >> CAN YOU PLEASE WRAP UP YOUR
COMMENTS? >> WELL, YOU HAVE THE COMMENTS. WE NEED THE MAPS. WE NEED SIGN DIMENSIONS TO BE CHANGED. WE NEED DISPLAY TIMES TO BE ADDRESSED. THE DISTRICTS, THE MANY DISTRICTS THAT ARE LISTED NEED TO BE CONSOLIDATED INTO 1, 2, OR 3.
THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE SEVEN DISTRICTS HERE. BUT TO RANDY'S POINT, AROUND THE COUNTRY IN PART OF THEIR EXHIBITS THEY INCLUDE THE WHAT WE CALL SELF-FUNDED ARTS SIGNAGE ZONES. AND THEY'RE TAKING THEIR
SELF-FUNDED ART SIGNAGE ZONES AND TURNING THEM INTO A ACTION REQUIREMENT. THERE'S A DISTINCTION, WE'D LIKE THAT BETTER EXPLAINED. >> THANK YOU.
LAST WE HAVE DANIELLE KENYAN. >> HI, THANK YOU. AND I DO APPRECIATE ALL THE TIME THAT WAS SPENT WORKING ON THIS AND BEING PART OF SOME OF THE COMMITTEES THAT GAVE FEEDBACK. I WANT TO JUST REITERATE WHAT SOME OF THE OTHERS SAID.
HAVING MORE TIME TO LOOK THROUGH THE LARGE DOCUMENT THAT WE JUST RECEIVED WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. AND I ALSO DISAGREE WITH THE MORATORIUM ON BILLBOARDS. IT'S NOT CLEAR AND YOU KNOW, ONCE THAT IS PUT OFF TO THE SIDE
NOT ALLOWED, IT WILL BE CLOSE TO IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE IT ALLOWED AGAIN, RIGHT? WE'RE WELL AWARE OF WHAT THE CHALLENGES WITH CHANGING SOMETHING FROM A STATIC TO A DIGITAL BILLBOARD. SO THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? I GUESS I'LL START US OFF IF NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO.
I GAVE A LOT OF MY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. I WON'T REPEAT ALL OF THEM. BUT OVERALL I'M PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT THIS. AND DEFINITELY WANT TO SEE US ADVOCATE TO THE LEGISLATURE, SEE
THE CITY ADVOCATE TO THE LEGISLATURE TO SEE IF THEY CAN GET SOME TAXING REVENUE OUT OF THIS. THE MORATORIUM, I DON'T REMEMBER IT BEING BROUGHT UP AT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, SARA. WAS THAT INCLUDED AT THAT POINT?
IT WAS? OKAY. I DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION ABOUT THAT. I'D BE OPEN TO REVISING THAT IF COMMISSIONERS DO HAVE A STRONG OPINION ON THAT. I DO THINK WE SHOULD MOVE THIS FORWARD FOR THE PUBLIC. THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STAGE OF THIS, THIS HAS TO GO TO THE CITY
COUNCIL BIZ COMMITTEE AND -- BH COMMITTEE, AND THEN THE FULL COUNCIL. THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WE HAVE THIS PROCESS, THIS IS THE INITIAL TIME WHERE YOU GET COMMENTS. AND THEN THE COUNCIL GETS TO LISTEN TO THE CONCERNS THAT WERE
BROUGHT UP HERE. AND MORE CAREFULLY CONSIDER THEM AT A LATER STAGE. SO YOU'LL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY, I WOULD STRONGLY DISCOURAGE US FROM DELAYING THIS FROM MOVING FORWARD. BUT IF ANYONE HAS ANY CHANGES THAT THEY WOULD LIKTO MAKE, I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO HEAR
THEM. COMMISSIONER WAGNER. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I HAVE JUST A COMMENT OR A CLARIFICATION QUESTION FOR STAFF AND THE PUBLIC I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL ABOUT HOW THIS PROCEEDS FROM HERE. SO IT GOES TO BHZ AND THERE WILL
BE NO PUBLIC HEARING AT BHZ, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS BEING HELD AT THE PLANNING COMMISON. >> SO IF STAKEHOLDERS OR PEOPLE AFFECTED BY THIS ORDINANCE WANTED TO HAVE THEIR VOICES HEARD, THEY WOULD WANT TO CONTACT THEIR CITY COUNCILLOR
SEATED ON BHZ, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. AND THE AUTHOR OF THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT IS COUNCILMEMBER CASHMAN WHO IS ON THE BHZ COMMITTEE. >> AND IF THERE WERE TO BE ANY AMENDMENTS BEYOND WHAT WE PASS TODAY IF WE WERE TO PASS IT, THAT WOULD NEED TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD BY ONE OF THE COUNCILORS
SEATED ON BHZ, IS THAT CORRECT? >> AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT COULD HAPPEN AT THE BHZ COMMITTEE OR AT THE FULL CITY COUNCIL. >> AND I THINK I'VE WATCHED SOME BHZ COMMITTEES AND SOME CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON YOUTUBES. MORE OFTEN THAT'S DONE AT BHZ
CORRECT AND THEN BY THE TIME IT GETS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THEY TRY TO MOVE A LITTLE BIT MORE QUICKLY AND GET THINGS DONE AND PASSED, IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? >> CORRECT. IDEALLY, IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES MADE TO WHAT'S PASSED HERE TODAY, THAT WOULD BE DONE IN COMMITTEE. THAT'S WHERE THE COUNCIL DOES
THE MAJORITY OF THEIR WORK. AND THEN THE COMMITTEE REPORT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO I GUESS WITH THAT CLARIFICATION IN MIND, THAT WAS REALLY HELPFUL FOR ME. I HOPE HELPFUL FOR FOLKS HERE. I THINK IT'S A GREAT STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
I THINK THAT THERE ARE DEFINITELY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES THAT NEED TO BE HEARD AND SOME CONCERNS THAT PERHAPS COULD BE INCORPORATED IN. I DON'T FEEL I HAVE THE DEPTH OF UNDERSTANDING IN SIGN ZONING
CODE TO DEFER FROM STAFF ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION. I KNOW HOW MUCH WORK HAS GONE INTO THIS ORDINANCE. I KNOW WE SAW IT AT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. AND I KNOW THAT STAKEHOLDERS HAVE BEEN ENGAGED AND THERE'S BEEN A TON OF WORK BEEN PUT INTO THIS. AND TO THINK THAT I HAVE MORE EXPERTISE THAN FOLKS WHO HAVE
WORKED ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME WOULD BE UNFAIR. SO I THINK I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER FORNEY AND THEN SHEPPARD. >> SINCE I'M LATE TO THE GAME ON ALL OF THIS, I'M DOING A LOT OF CATCH UP. AND I WOULD SAY PROBABLY MY
BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE BIRD SAFETY. AND SO WHEN I SEE THE SHORELAND AND THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR HERE AND EVERYTHING, NOT KNOWING ENOUGH ABOUT THIS AND EVERYTHING, THAT TO ME IS
VERY EM -- IMPERATIVE THAT THAT'S PROTECTIVE. I WILL ALSO SAY PERSONALLY I HATE BILLBOARDS. I LOVE BEING IN NEW ZEALAND AND MAINE WHERE THERE ARE NO BILLBOARDS BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR PURVIEW IS HERE. BUT THE BIRD SAFETY IS SOMETHING
VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. LIKE POLLUTION IS SOMETHING I BELIEVE WE SHOULD ADVISE HOWEVER TO RESTRICT. THANK YOU. >> I DO WANT TO SAY I THINK IT IS IN OUR PURVIEW, IF YOU WANTED TO PROPOSE SCRATCH THIS AND JUST
BAN ALL BILLBOARDS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DO. >> AS FAR AS BIRD SAFETY? >> IF YOU WANT US TO BE NEW ZEALAND OR SOMETHING, THAT IS -- >> I WOULD LOVE TO ADD ON THAT
OUR SHORELAND AND OUR FLYWAYS NEED TO BE PROTECTED. I THINK IT'S PARAMOUNT THAT YEAH. SO IF IT'S ONLY CERTAIN ZONES, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, I THINK
THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY TRULY NEEDS TO BE UPHELD. >> SO THIS IS A QUASI LEGISLATIVE ITEM. THIS IS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY FOR WHAT NEW
ORDINANCES THEY SHOULD IMPLEMENT. AND IF WE BELIEVED THAT INSTEAD OF THAT, THEY SHOULD JUST CHANGE IT MORE DRAMATICALLY, THAT WOULD BE THE TYPE OF THING WE COULD DO. I PERSONALLY DON'T SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE I THINK IN SOME AREAS THE BILLBOARDS REALLY ADD A LOT. LIKE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, THE
THEATER DISTRICT, I THINK IS A GREAT AREA HAVING MORE MODEL OF TIMES SQUARE, I THINK THAT CAN ADD TO A NEIGHBORHOOD. ALSO I THINK THE CULTURAL CORRIDORS ARE A GREAT IDEA. AND THIS PROPOSAL IS A START NOT AN END FOR THINGS LIKE THAT.
THE FUTURE COUNCIL COULD EXPAND FURTHER. I THINK THEY WOULD WANT TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, LIKE THEY'D WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT SO THAT WHATEVER SIGNAGE HAPPENS IN THE CULTURAL CORRIDORS MATCHES THOSE CORRIDORS.
BUT I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA AND I'M GLAD PEOPLE BROUGHT IT UP TONIGHT. COMMISSIONER SHEPPARD. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY IN GENERAL, THAT THE MORATORIUM
MIGHT NEED SOME FURTHER REVIEW THAN JUST -- FOR YOUR LIVELIHOOD. I'M MORE CONCERNED THAT WE SAW THIS AT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SOME WEEKS AGO AND ALL OF YOU ARE SEEING IT FRIDAY AND THIS IS WHAT YOUR LIVELIHOODS DEPEND ON AND I DON'T FIND THAT TO BE AN
ACCEPTABLE REVIEW TIME. AND I DON'T THINK THAT MANY OF YOU DO EITHER. I WOULD PERSONALLY BE IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING THIS. I UNDERSTAND THE URGENCY, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO COMMUNICATE IN ADVANCE.
>> ANY OTHER -- COMMISSIONER BAXLEY? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHEPPARD. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. I THINK FOR ME THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS THE PAUSE.
I THINK HAVING, JUST GIVING THE DYNAMIC SITUATION OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE POLITICAL CYCLE AND AS STAFF HAS STATED, THERE'S LITTLE RISK BECAUSE THE CURRENT
LEGISLATION IS PRETTY MUCH STAGNATED. SO I THINK KEEPING THE SYSTEM AS IS UNTIL WE COME UP WITH A NEW ONE MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE. SO FOR ME, I'M IN SUPPORT OF MOVING THIS FORWARD, BUT I'D LIKE TO REMOVE THE TEMPORARY PAUSE AS PART OF IT.
>> OKAY. FOR THAT MOTION, WHAT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE? >> I WOULD NEED TO PULL THE TEXT UP IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I BELIEVE WE WOULD WANT TO STRIKE THAT PARTICULAR PORTION.
SO SARA, IF YOU WANT TO MAYBE OR I GUESS I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD WANT AN ACTUAL MOTION TO READ ON THAT? I KNOW WE WOULDN'T WANT A MOTION ON THAT. BUT IF A MOTION WERE TO COME
FORWARD, HOW BEST TO ARTICULATE THE LANGUAGE SO THAT IT'S CLEAR IN THE DRAFT? >> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT MEYER, COMMISSIONERS. SO THIS I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THIS PAUSE IS TRULY EXPECTED TO BE A PAUSE.
WE HAVE WHAT WE FEEL IS ONE OPPORTUNITY TO REDEVELOP OUR REGULATIONS ONCE THIS CREDIT SYSTEM IS EXPIRED. THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, THE PAUSE
THAT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR NEW BILLBOARDS AND CONVERSIONS IS TIED IN WITH THE EXPIRATION OF THE CREDIT SYSTEM. AND SO I WANT TO ENSURE THAT IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY SORT OF ALLOWANCE FOR EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT WE ARE COGNIZANT
OF THE FACT THAT IF THE CREDIT SYSTEM EXPIRES, BUT WE ALLOW NEW BILLBOARDS, WE WILL ABSOLUTELY SEE A PROLIFERATION OF NEW BILLBOARDS WHERE CREDITS ARE NOT ALLOWED AND ALSO OR EXCUSE ME WHERE CREDITS ARE NOT REQUIRED AND ALSO WHERE CREDITS ARE REQUIRED. SO THAT INCLUDES THE WHOLE OF
OUR DOWNTOWN AND ALSO OUR LIMITED ACCESS ROADWAYS. SO I THINK WE WOULD LIKE A HAND IN SHAPING LANGUAGE THAT SEPARATES THOSE TWO ISSUES. IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ALLOWING EXISTING BILLBOARDS TO
CONVERT, I THINK WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE PAUSE REMAIN IN PLACE AND TO GIVE US A YEAR OR WHATEVER IT ENDS UP BEING, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR POLICYMAKERS ABOUT HOW LONG THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEND AT A THE LEGISLATURE -, -- AT THE
LEGISLATURE, BUT TO GIVE US THAT TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER NEW SYSTEM COMES INTO PLACE IS EFFECTIVE AND ALLOWS US TO ACHIEVE OUR GOALS. THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE IS THAT THE SUCCESS AROUND DISTRICTS LIKE DENVER AND SAN ANTONIO IS THAT THEY DON'T ALLOW BILLBOARDS ANYWHERE ELSE.
AND SO IF WE ARE LOOKING AT A TRUE REVENUE GENERATION MODEL, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME BUILT UP DEMAND. AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DEMAND FOR NEW BILLBOARDS AS WE'VE SEEN FROM MEDIA COMPANIES THAT HAVE COME TO THE CITY AND ASKED TO HAVE MORE PROLIFERATION OF BILLBOARDS.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE EXTENT OF THE DEMAND THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN DENVER OR SAN ANTONIO WHERE THE ANSWER REALLY IS YOU BUY INTO THIS PROGRAM THAT THE CITY HAS CREATED OR YOU DON'T HAVE A BILLBOARD. AND SO THE PAUSE ALSO GIVES US THE ABILITY TO CREATE SOME DEMAND AND SOME BUY IN FOR THIS
NEW PROGRAM. I'LL OPEN IT UP IF MEG HAS ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD. BUT THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I THINK THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ENSURE THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME SORT OF TIME LIMIT ON THIS MORATORIUM,
WE TRULY DO BELIEF THAT IT IS A PAUSE. WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF GETTING RID OF BILLBOARDS BUT WE WANT TO BE VERY, VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THEM. THAT WE WOULD SEPARATE THAT PROVISION FROM THE EXPIRATION OF THE CREDIT SYSTEM. >> YOU ANTICIPATED THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK WHICH IS
WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF TIME LIMIT SO THAT WE REVERT TO THE STATUS QUO ANTE IF WE DON'T SUCCEED? DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR HOW LONG THAT WOULD BE? >> PRESIDENT MEYER, SO ARTS AND
CULTURAL AFFAIRS PROCESS THROUGH THE CULTURE SCAPE IS TAKING PLACE CURRENTLY. A LEGISLATIVE SESSION WOULD BE NEXT YEAR IN 2026. AND SO AT A MINIMUM WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT LIKELY A YEAR TO SEE
THE RESULT OF THAT LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND THEN TO CREATE AN AMENDMENT. BUT IF POLICYMAKERS WERE INTERESTED IN CONTINUING TO PURSUE THAT AMENDMENT, THERE ARE CERTAINLY POLICYMAKERS AT THE
LEGISLATURE WHO ARE ANTI-BILLBOARD SO WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE MAY NEED SOME TIME AT THE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. OUR CITY POLICYMAKERS COULD LOOK FOR MULTIPLE LEGISLATIVE CYCLES. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD SAY THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE A YEAR OR IT WOULD ONLY BE TWO YEARS.
BUT WE ARE CERTAINLY COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A PAUSE THAT HAS NO END. YOU COULD SAY A YEAR, YOU COULD SAY TWO YEARS. BUT STAFF DOESN'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IN TERMS OF WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
WOULD BE FOR OUR POLICYMAKERS AT THE CITY. >> SARA, I FEEL LIKE THE PINCH POINT IS MORE ABOUT, IT'S NOT NEW BILLBOARDS, IT'S THE ABILITY TO MODIFY EXISTING. SO WHERE DOES THE STAFF STAND ON
A SLIGHT MODIFICATION, WHERE ALTERATIONS WOULD BE ALLOWED BUT NO NEW BILLBOARDS WOULD BE ALLOWED? >> YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I DO THINK IT GOES BACK TO HAVING SOME OF THIS DEMAND AND ALLOWING TIME FOR US TO CREATE THIS NEW SYSTEM. SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE BUILT IN
SOME QUESTION AND SOME INSECURITY WITH EXISTING BILLBOARD OWNERS. AND IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT A PAUSE FOR CONVERSIONS OR FOR NEW BILLBOARDS WE WILL LIKELY SEE A LOT OF CONVERSIONS PRIOR TO A NEW SYSTEM COMING INTO PLACE.
SO I THINK WE WILL HAVE THE LACK OF THE BENEFIT OF THE PENT UP DEMAND. AND I THINK WE WILL HAVE A LACK OF BUY IN FROM STAKEHOLDERS WHO DON'T NEED TO ENTER INTO THIS SYSTEM BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR
CONVERSIONS. I THINK A PAUSE IS HELPFUL FOR THE CITY TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS AND HAVING SOME ALIGNMENT WITH OUR DOWNTOWN VISIONING. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> I THINK SO. >> STAFF WOULD PREFER THAT THERE BE AN OVERALL PAUSE.
>> YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE ANGST AROUND THAT? >> I CAN, ABSOLUTELY. >> CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, MEG McMANN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. I WANT TO REITERATE BECAUSE IT
SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING BILLBOARDS. THAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD MAYBE TALK ABOUT A CARVE OUT THAT WOULD ALLOW SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY AROUND MODIFICATIONS AND WHAT THAT MEANS. I THINK THE PRIMARY CONCERN IS AROUND THE DIGITIZATION, BUT THE
SIZE, THE ANGLE, THE HOW IT'S CONFIGURED, I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY LOTS OF AREAS THAT WE COULD MAYBE FIND SOME LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS FOR SOME MODIFICATIONS THAT MEET SOME OF THE CONCERNS FROM EXISTING BILLBOARD OWNERS THAT REALLY I
THINK THE PRIMARY ISSUES ARE NEW BILLBOARDS AND THEN THE DIGITIZATION. >> THANKS, MEG. I THINK ANY TWEAKING WOULD BE HELPFUL. OBVIOUSLY PROBABLY THE BIG PUSH IS TOWARDS DIGITIZATION. I THINK THAT'S COMING QUICKLY.
AND SO I GUESS IF WE'RE, THE OTHER LEVER WOULD BE TO REALLY TRY TO PUT A TIMEFRAME ON THIS. I THINK IT FEELS TOO OPEN ENDED. LIKE CAN WE GIVE OURSELVES A TARGET DATE AND HIT IT AS OPPOSED TO A LITTLE SQUISH
THERE. CAN WE ESTABLISH A DATE? AND SAY BY A CERTAIN DATE WE WILL HAVE THIS RECTIFIED? I THINK THAT MAY BE HELP SOME OF THE CONCERNS. IT'S JUST TOO OPEN ENDED, RIGHT? >> CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER
BAXLEY, I THINK PERHAPS STAFF MIGHT REQUEST A LITTLE TIME TO THINK THROUGH THAT AND TALK WITH OUR POLICYMAKERS ABOUT WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE. WE REALLY HEARD CLEARLY FROM THE POLICYMAKERS THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED IN SEEING A PROLIFERATION OF NEW BILLBOARDS AND THEY WERE VERY INTERESTED IN THIS LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION AROUND
FINDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR REVENUE GENERATION. AND SO UNDER THAT GUIDANCE, I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND LIKE HOW IMPORTANT IS THAT, IF WE AREN'T SUCCESSFUL AT THE LEGISLATURE FOR EXAMPLE, DOES THAT MEAN THERE'S NO INTEREST IN THIS ANYMORE? DOES IT MEAN THAT THERE'S
INTEREST JUST WITHOUT THE REVENUE COMPONENT. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRIORITIES ARE. BUT I THINK GENERALLY OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S A STRONG INTEREST IN PURSUING THIS LEGISLATIVE FIX AND MOVING
FORWARD WITH AN EXPANSION OF OUR CURRENT BILLBOARD ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT IN TERMS OF ITS FOOTPRINT. AND WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR SOME TIME TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT THE SPECIFICS AROUND THAT. >> SO I'M PERSUADED TO NOT ALTER
THE PAUSE, BUT MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO CONSIDER EVEN IF IT'S LIKE A FIVE YEAR TIMELINE WHICH WOULD GIVE ENOUGH TIME TO GO THROUGH THE EXISTING SESSION AND TWO ELECTION CYCLES AFTER
THAT, AT LEAST THEN IT WOULDN'T BE COMPLETELY OPEN ENDED. COMMISSIONER FORNEY -- AM I MISSING YOU? OH I'M SORRY. >> I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SEE ME. >> I APOLOGIZE.
>> THAT'S OKAY. A FEW THINGS. THANK YOU FOR THIS WORK. I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT IT. I THINK THAT ANY WAY THAT WE ACTIVATE SPACES IS A BENEFIT TO OUR CITY. AND WE ARE VERY MUCH IN THE BUSINESS AT THE COUNTY, THE CITY, MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS
LOOKING AT REVENUE GENERATION TOOLS. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTIONS BUT LOOKING AT NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE. SO I SUPPORT THAT. FOR THE CONVERSATIONS AROUND DATES, THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN 2026 ENDS MAY 18, 2026. THAT'S A DATE. IF WE WANT TO EXTEND THAT, WE
CAN LOOK UP THE DATE FOR THE END OF THE 2027 -- BUT I DO THINK A PAUSE IS NOT A PAUSE IF THERE IS NO END DATE. SO I SUPPORT LOOKING AT A DATE RIGHT NOW. I ALSO WANT TO CALL OUT ONE OF THE TESTIFIERS MENTIONED PUBLIC
PAINTED SIGNS. I LOVE THAT AND I REMEMBER SAYING THAT AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. THAT IS AN EXEMPTION. I WANT TO JUST CONFIRM WITH YOU THAT PAINTED BUSINESS SIGNS, LIKE PAINTED ON THE SIDE OF A BUILDING IS EXEMPT FROM ALL OF THAT MEANING THAT IS A SIGN THAT
CAN BE DONE AND CONTINUE? CONFIRMED? >> YES, COMMISSIONER CONLEY, THAT IS CORRECT FOR ON PREMISES SIGNS. SO A PAINTED WALL SIGN WOULD NEED TO BE RELATED TO A BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY. >> THAT'S GREAT AND I LOVE THAT. I ALSO AM INTERESTED IN ALONG
LAKE STREET WE'VE GOT SOME BEAUTIFUL MURALS. WE'VE GOT A BEAUTIFUL CORRIDOR. AND THERE'S BILLBOARDS AND THERE'S ALL OF THE THINGS. AND LAKE STREET IS A CULTURAL CORRIDOR. AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING TO ACTIVATE LAKE STREET FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND SO I JUST WONDER HOW
THE FOCUS ON DOWNTOWN WILL PLAY WELL THROUGHOUT THE CITY OR PLAY IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY. WE HEARD SOMEONE TALK ABOUT SMALL BUSINESSES OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN AND WHAT THOSE RAMIFICATIONS COULD BE. SO PERHAPS YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT NOW JUST SO THAT I HAVE CLARIFICATION ON HOW THIS MIGHT
IMPACT NEW BUSINESSES. WE'RE STILL REBUILDING LAKE STREET FIVE YEARS SINCE IT BURNED. AND SO AS WE REBUILD, THERE'S AN INFLUX OF PUBLIC ART, THERE'S AN INFLUX OF PAINTED SIGNS ON BUILDINGS, THERE'S AN INFLUX OF NEW BILLBOARDS COMING UP BECAUSE
THERE'S NEW BUSINESSES THAT WILL BE BUILT OR ARE ABOUT TO BE FINISHED. SO IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO ME ABOUT HOW THIS, THE LANGUAGE FOR THE SIGN ORDINANCE EXPANDS FROM DOWNTOWN AND THEN TWO, I WOULD PROPOSE A DATE OF THE END OF THE
LEGISLATIVE SESSION. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT, MAY 18TH, THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE AT THE COUNTY WE'RE WORKING RIGHT NOW TO FIND PEOPLE TO CARRY BILLS. WE ARE WORKING THROUGH OUR IGR TEAMS TO CRAFT OUR PLATFORM FOR THE STATE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR. AND IT'S REVENUE GENERATION
TOOLS AMONG A HOST OF OTHER THINGS. SO CONVERSATIONS ARE HAPPENING NOW ON WHO COULD CARRY WHAT. IT ALL DEPENDS ON RELATIONSHIPS THAT YOU HAVE WITH YOUR OTHER POLICYMAKERS. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THE END OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION OR A
YEAR FROM THAT END DATE AS POSSIBLE DATES TO MAKE IT A TRUE PAUSE AND NOT AN OPEN ENDED ONE. AND THEN ANY CLARIFICATION YOU CAN GIVE ME ON HOW THIS IMPACTS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER
CONLEY. IF WE ARE LOOKING AT A SPECIFIC DATE, STAFF WOULD LIKE SOME TIME FOLLOWING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO CRAFT THESE REGULATIONS. SO I THINK A YEAR FOLLOWING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US IN TERMS OF DOING THIS ENGAGEMENT WORK.
BUT ABSOLUTELY OUR IGR STAFF IS IN CONVERSATION WITH NOT ONLY OTHER COMMUNITIES BUT WITH STATE LEGISLATURE ABOUT WHO COULD POSSIBLY BRING THIS FORWARD AND IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S TENABLE AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE.
IN TERMS OF BROADENING THE SCOPE OF THIS AMENDMENT, WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM POLICYMAKERS, SO FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE OR FROM CITY COUNCIL TO LOOK AT SPECIFIC AREAS. THE DIRECTION OF THIS SPECIFIC ITEM WAS FOCUSED ON DOWNTOWN.
BUT ABSOLUTELY STAFF WOULD LOVE TO SEE IF DIRECTED FROM OUR POLICYMAKERS SOME ADDITIONAL THOUGHT GIVEN TO OUR OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY THAT COULD ALSO USE ATTENTION REGARDING SIGNS.
>> WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY, COMMISSIONER GORDON? OKAY. COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO FORWARD THIS WITH THE ADDITIONAL
CLAUSE OF A ADDITION TIME FRAME BY A YEAR AFTER THE END OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION 2026. >> SO LIKE JUNE OF 27 MAYBE? >> YEAH. >> OKAY.
DOES THAT LANGUAGE WORK, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD MEET THAT INTENT, KIMBERLY? >> I THINK WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE. WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE. >> OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SO JUST TO CONFIRM THE ACTUALLY DATE WOULD BE JUNE --
>> JUNE OF 2027. >> JUNE 1ST, JUNE -- >> SORRY. JUNE WHAT DAY OF THE MONTH? >> ON OR BEFORE.
>> ON OR BEFORE JUNE 1, 2027? OKAY. >> DID YOU SECOND THAT? >> I WILL. BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE MOTION, IT'S TO APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH THE PROVISIONAL DATE OR WITH THE
DATE OF ON OR BEFORE JUNE OF 2027? >> CORRECT, COMMISSIONER. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. IS THERE MORE DISCUSSION ON IT? ALL RIGHT, NOT SEEING ANY, SO I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE
ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> AYE. >> FORNEY. >> AYE. >> GORDON. >> AYE. >> SHEPPARD. >> AYE. >> WAGNER. >> AYE. >> VICE PRESIDENT BAXLEY.
>> AYE. >> AND PRESIDENT MEYER. >> AYE. >> THERE ARE SEVEN AYES. >> ALL RIGHT. THAT IS ADOPTED AND FORWARDED TO THE COUNCIL. THAT CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS FOR THE EVENING. WE HAVE NO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE THIS WEEK, NO AGENDA ITEMS. OUR NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING WILL BE NOVEMBER 17TH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS? >> JUST ONE QUICK UPDATE. IT IS AN ELECTION YEAR SO TYPICALLY OUR CALENDAR FOLLOWS THE CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR, BUT BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE ADOPTING
ON ONE UNTIL JANUARY, WE'RE GOING TO BRING A PARTIAL CALENDAR TO THE 11/17 MEETING. IT WILL INCLUDE DATES FOR JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, AND THEN WE'LL BRING A FULL CALENDAR TO YOU HOPEFULLY END OF JANUARY, EARLY FEBRUARY TO ADOPT FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2026.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU EVERYONE. WE ARE ADJOURNED.